The 1611 Holy Bible Versus Lying Satanic Jacob

The 1611 Holy Bible versus Lying satanic Jacob Prasch Prequel To: “men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” Romans 1:17 From: All who “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” 2 Timothy 1:13 Date: “till I come” Revelation 2:25 Subject: “Their poison is like the poison of a serpent” Psalm 58:4

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/biggest-cobra/ “They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders’ poison is under their lips. Selah” Psalm 140:3 Therefore for any and all under the banner of “My name is Legion: for we are many” Mark 5:9: 2 “You Do Your Worst and We Will Do Our Best” Winston S. Churchill, July 14th 1941 www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1941-1945-war-leader/you-do-your- worst-and-we-will-do-our-best

The Right Honourable “We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek Sir Winston Churchill from them no compunction...Where you have KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal...We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best. Perhaps it may be our turn soon; perhaps it may be our turn now...” It is: “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...” Hosea 8:7

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Reaping the Whirlwind “Then did I beat them small as the dust the-ten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/reaping- before the wind” Psalm 18:42 any and all: whirlwind.html

“And I will scatter toward every wind all that are about him to help him, and all his bands; and I will draw out the sword after them” Ezekiel 12:14

mynameismimi-c.blogspot.co.uk/ www.stretcherbearers.com/Gallery/Sword.html “for the sword of the LORD shall devour from the one end of the land even to the other end of the land: no flesh shall have peace” Jeremiah 12:12 3 The 1611 Holy Bible versus Lying satanic Jacob Prasch Prequel Introduction This writer has answered Jacob Prasch’s forays against “the book of the LORD” Isaiah 34:16 in earlier studies. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611Holy Bible versus Lying Jacob Prasch and The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch. Jacob Prasch www.moriel.org/ was already known to this writer at the time of writing of those studies as an embittered enemy of “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21 the 1611 Holy Bible who had no scruples about attacking the Book and Bible believers. Every Bible believer should perceive Jacob Prasch as a latter-day “Alexander the coppersmith...Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words” 2 Timothy 4:14-15. Some years ago, this writer received a copy of an article by Jacob Prasch attacking the AV1611 and its supporters from Mr. Michael Clark of The Covenant Publishing Company. This writer responded to that article with a letter to Jacob Prasch dated August 29th 2001. That letter led to a brief but sharp exchange between Jacob Prasch and this writer in which, in this writer’s view, Jacob Prasch made it clear that he was his own authority on what God has said or not said according to Isaiah 14:14 “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” That is why this work in entitled The 1611 Holy Bible versus Lying satanic Jacob Prasch Pre- quel. Jacob Prasch should take note of Zophar’s warning in the light of Isaiah 14:14. “Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where is he?” Job 20:6-7. This work sets out the full exchange between Jacob Prasch and this writer, beginning with this writer’s letter to Jacob Prasch of August 29th 2001. Additional remarks by this writer are given in blue text with citations from other sources in green or green italic text unless otherwise stated. The purpose of these additional remarks is to emphasise the satanic nature of Jacob Prasch’s opposition to the 1611 Holy Bible and in turn to emphasise further, as it is hoped this writer’s earlier works have shown, that all such opposition is “of the devil” and every such critic of the AV1611 fully de- serves Paul’s rebuke to “Elymas the sorcerer” Acts 13:8. The rebuke is ironic in the particular case of Jacob Prasch. “And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” Acts 13:7- 10. To date, Jacob Prasch has not so ceased. He is like the king of Ammon who disdained Jeph- thah’s reasoned and factual analysis and rebellious Israel in the time of Joash. “Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him” Judges 11:28. “Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear” 2 Chronicles 24:19. This work is therefore aimed at rebuking lying, satanic Jacob Prasch whose ministry like those of all other Bible critics is dedicated to “seeking to turn away...from the faith” Acts 13:8 “those that were clean escaped from them who live in error” 2 Peter 2:18 those of whom the Lord Jesus Christ said “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” John 15:3. The satanic nature of Jacob Prasch’s Moriel Ministries is in fact readily apparent from its symbol, in contrast to the emblem of a Bible-Believing ministry such as Bible Believer’s Bulletin. 4 Moriel Ministries satanic Symbol The very symbol of Prasch’s ministry www.moriel.org/ shows it to be satanic to the core.

Observe that the open Bible figure is actually contained within the hexagram. Prasch’s written correspondence shows this containment even more distinctly. The seven-branched candlestick is also almost completely contained within the hexagram in Prasch’s written correspondence. See Jacob Prasch Backlash 1, 2. The hexagram is strongly occult. See: www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/star_of_david.htm www.straitwaytruth.com/artman/publish/article_44.shtml. Note Acts 7:43 “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” Acts 7:43 gives the association between the six-pointed star and Moloch (Molech) the god to which Israelites sacrificed their children. See note below Holocaust and the Six-Pointed Star. Dr Ruckman in his commentaries The Book of Minor Prophets Volume 1 pp 284-285 on Amos 5:26 and The Book of Acts p 251 identifies the star of Acts 7:43 as the six-pointed star of idolatry. He also identifies “the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy”” Ezekiel 8:3 with “Satan’s seat” Revelation 2:13 in the Ruckman Reference Bible pp 1076-1077. The six-pointed star is therefore associated with the devil because the devil is jealous. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” Isaiah 14:14. God is in turn jealous or provoked to jealousy over His people if they go into idolatry or are deceived by the devil. See these sample scriptures. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” Exodus 20:4-5. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” Exodus 34:14. “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?” 1 Corinthians 10:22. “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” 2 Corinthians 11:2. In sum, Jacob Prasch’s ‘Bible’ contained within the six-pointed star “the star of your god Rem- phan” Acts 7:43 is the devil’s counterfeit bible that makes God jealous over any of His people who may be deceived by Moriel Ministries’ antagonism to “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21 the 1611 Holy Bible. Jacob Prasch’s ‘Bible’ contained within the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 symbolises the deception of Moriel Ministries’ antagonism to “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21 the 1611 Holy Bible. Countering that deception is as indicated above the main reason for this work. Other ministries use emblems, including Pensacola Bible Institute and the Bible Believer’s Bulletin. However, key differences exist between Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of 5 your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 and the emblem of the ministry of Pensacola Bible Institute and the Bible Believer’s Bulletin. See the emblem of the ministry of Pensacola Bible Institute and the Bible Believer’s Bulletin.

As indicated, Jacob Prasch’s symbol shows a bible contained within the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43. The Bible Believer’s Bulletin emblem shows no such containment. “Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound” 2 Timothy 2:9. Jacob Prasch’s emblem identifies no actual Bible. The Bible Believer’s Bulletin emblem refers explicitly to the AV1611. Jacob Prasch’s symbol has no accompanying text of scripture. The seven-branched candlestick por- trays the seven spirits of God, Isaiah 11:2, Revelation 4:5 to shed light on the word of God but in Ja- cob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 he has had no regard for what the Lord said in Luke 11:35 “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.” Note in passing that “the...shewbread” Exodus 25:30, Leviticus 24:5-9, Numbers 4:7 with Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 with the bread being shown continually is a more direct picture of the 66 Books of the 1611 Holy Bible and of Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4. “And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD” Leviticus 24:5-6. “And upon the table of shewbread they shall spread a cloth of blue, and put thereon the dishes, and the spoons, and the bowls, and covers to cover withal: and the continual bread shall be thereon” Numbers 4:7. See Dr Ruckman’s Reference Bible p 144, his commentary The Book of Exodus pp 464-467 and his booklet The Tabernacle p 10. The Bible Believer’s Bulletin emblem cites John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” and the sword component of the emblem immediately brings to mind “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” Ephesians 6:17. That is instructive. Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 has none of the components of the Bible Believer’s Bulletin emblem and as indicated is basically a satanic ruse employed “by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” Ephesians 4:14.

6 Holocaust and the Six-Pointed Star Attention is now drawn to a further sinister aspect of Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43. The word holocaust is always associated with the Nazi persecution of Jews in WW2. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust. Jewish inmates were forced to wear the symbol of the six-pointed star. See ww2inreview.wikispaces.com/The+Holocaust The Holocaust. It should be noted that the correct term for the Nazi persecution of the Jews in WW2 is not holocaust. It is inquisition. See: www.chick.com/catalog/books/0191.asp The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris Part V The Infernal Cycle, Chapters 5, 6 The Gestapo and the Company of Jesus, The Death Camps and the Anti- Semitic Crusade respectively and these extracts pp 165-166. Another well informed person, the mainspring of the pact between the Holy See and Berlin and the pope’s secret chamberlain, Franz von Papen, was even more explicit: “The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy”... To this, we will add the result of this “putting into practice”: 25 million victims of the concentration camps – the official figure issued by the United Nations Organisation. Here, we find it necessary to add something for candid minds, for those who cannot admit that the organised massacres were one of the papacy’s “high principles”. Of course, this candour is diligently maintained: - “Such barbarian deeds belong to the past”! So say some good apostles to the simple while shrugging their shoulders before the non-catholics for whom the fires of the Holy Inquisition are still burning”... i.e. as they did in the Catholic-Nazi death camps of WW2 as Edmond Paris shows in The Secret History of the Jesuits Part V, Chapters 5, 6. The Jesuits who masterminded the WW2 inquisition of the extermination camps have no doubt en- couraged use of the word holocaust because it conceals the reality of the WW2 Catholic inquisition against non-Catholics. The Lord in His wisdom “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” Isaiah 46:10 has nevertheless associated the word holocaust with Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43. The Lord did so through the King James translators “a band of men, whose hearts God had touched” 1 Samuel 10:26. The King James translators said this in www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm The Translators to the Reader. It is as though they were warning the world 300+ years ahead of time. No other version preface dares raise the subject. This is in part what they said in reference to the 1610 Douay-Rheims version that includes the 1582 Jesuit-Rheims NASV, NIV ESV etc. prototype New Testament brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB are the new “Vati- can Versions.” Note the highlighted words. 7 Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesias- tical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGRE- GATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Pa- pists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan [Isaiah 19:18], that it may be understood even of the very vulgar. Challoner’s 1749-1752 Revision of the 1610 DR retains the above words with different spelling but appears to have reduced the number of times that they occur. However, it retains the word holocaust(s) 273 times in 253 verses, the first occurrence being in Genesis 8:20. The 1611 Holy Bible gives the meaning of the word as does The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Genesis 8:20 DR version, Challoner’s Revision “And Noe built an altar unto the Lord: and taking of all cattle and fowls that were clean, offered holocausts upon the altar.” 1611 Holy Bible “And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” The 1611 Holy Bible retains the expression “burnt offering(s)” 184+86 = 270 times in 169+81 = 250 verses i.e. almost the same number of times as for holocaust(s) in the DR version. The terms are equivalent. Under God’s permitted will e.g. Acts 21:14 therefore the devil, the pope and the Jesuits were able to circulate a word in popular usage that described what the Catholic Church was actually doing to the Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp As indicated, the King James translators defined the word 300+ years in advance. The holocaust is the WW2 inquisitorial offering up of “the children of Israel” Genesis 32:32, 638 times in total, to Molech as had happened in the Old Testament and as the Jews had done themselves in apostasy, Leviticus 18:21, 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 1 Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:10, Jeremiah 32:35, Amos 5:26. Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 was inti- mately associated with both Israel in apostasy and the WW2 inquisitorial offering up of “the children of Israel” Genesis 32:32 to Molech. God’s judgement fell for Israel’s apostasy with Molech. “But I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings, saith the LORD: and I will kindle a fire in the forest thereof, and it shall devour all things round about it” Jeremiah 21:14. As Paul warned “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” Galatians 6:7. It should be noted in passing that there will be a reckoning for the abortion holocaust in the UK since 1968. “And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the LORD” Ezekiel 39:6. No revival or national blessing from God should be anticipated until after Ezekiel 39:6 is fulfilled. See: www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-is-genocide-uk-pro-lifers-defend-scottish-bishops-holocaust- compar/ www.repentuk.com/abortion.html. In addition, the WW2 holocaust or inquisitorial offering up of “the children of Israel” Genesis 32:32 to Molech was a sign of things to come during the End Times reign of “the beast which I 8 saw...like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority” Revelation 13:2. This is how the End Times holocaust or inquisitorial offering up of “the children of Israel” Genesis 32:32 to Molech will be carried out by means of the most advanced supernatural technology. “And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men...And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed” Revelation 13:13, 15. A true Jew won’t worship an image, Daniel 3:16-18. Revelation 13:13 reveals the fate they will therefore face in the End Times under the reign of the beast, the last pope, as it was in WW2, though with far more sophisticated satanic technology. By far the greatest bulwark for today’s believer in these increasingly “perilous times” 2 Timothy 3:1 of the pre-End Times before the Lord’s Return is full submission to “the book of the LORD” Isaiah 34:16 the 1611 Holy Bible as the Lord Himself has promised. “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of tempta- tion, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” Revelation 3:10. Jacob Prasch would subvert that bulwark and leave today’s believer “like a city that is broken down, and without walls” Proverbs 25:28. Moreover, Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 and its association with the WW2 holocaust or inquisitorial offering up of “the children of Israel” Genesis 32:32 to Molech and the future End Times holocaust or inquisitorial offering up of “the children of Israel” Genesis 32:32 to Molech during the End Times reign of “the beast which I saw...like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority” Revelation 13:2 shows him to be like those whom the Lord through Isaiah condemned. “Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusa- lem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:...And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it” Isaiah 28:14-15, 18. Then Jacob Prasch’s symbol of the six-pointed star “the star of your god Remphan” Acts 7:43 shall then disintegrate into star-dust and be “as stubble before the wind, and as chaff that the storm carrieth away” Job 21:18. This writer’s letter to Jacob Prasch of August 29th 2001 now follows, followed by Jacob Prasch Backlash 1. 9 COPY August 29th 2001 Jacob Prasch C/- MORIEL United Kingdom P. O. Box 201 Maidenhead, Berks SL6 9FB England Dear Mr. Prasch Mr. Michael Clark of The Covenant Publishing Company has forwarded me a copy of your article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas, from the Summer/Autumn 2001 issue of your Moriel Prayer and Newsletter. The article is similar to that on your web-site www.moriel.org/moriel/articles/bible_versions.htm. Having greatly appreciated Dr. Mrs. Riplinger’s ministry, I am replying to your newsletter article. 2015 update. Jacob Prasch’s newsletter continues to the present www.moriel.org/newsletter.php. 2015 update. The site www.moriel.org/moriel/articles/bible_versions.htm does not return any content. However the search link www.moriel.org/search/zoom_searchform.html returns 11 results for the string KJV Only, several of which continue to attack Sister Riplinger and Dr Ruckman to the present day, the latest entry being for May 8th 2014 entitled Bible Versions. Jacob Prasch’s on-going attacks against Sister Riplinger and Dr Ruckman are clearly symptomatic of the stubbornness of ancient Israel that the Lord Himself rebuked. “And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people” Exodus 32:9. Para 3, p 11 of your article states “To have a broadly balanced scope of the various aspects of this [KJV Only] issue, Moriel additionally recommends “The KJV Controversy” by the Reformed author James White”. For “a broadly balanced scope”, you should also have recommended Mrs. Riplinger’s replies to James White, www.av1611.org/othpubl.html. You failed to do so. 2015 update. The site www.av1611.org/othpubl.html is still functional. For a detailed evaluation of James White’s non-scholarship see www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro- and-dawaite.php KJO Review Full Text – White’s fraudulent claims against the 1611 Holy Bible re- futed in detail! See also The 1611 Holy Bible versus Papal Puppet Paul Peters www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av- only/why-the-av-only-7434.php p 3 and this extract. No format changes have been made. It will be seen that PPPP has lauded James White as a ‘scholar.’ He is not. PPPP has lied about James White [like Jacob Prasch]. See www.avpublications.com/avnew/resources.html The James White Controversy Parts 1-7 that counter James White’s unscholarly attacks on New Age Bible Versions and The Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr Peter S. Ruckman. See also: Appendix 1 - James White and the ‘King James Only Controversy’ so-called Appendix 2 - The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy – re: The King James Only Controversy by James White, Extract on White’s 7 ‘KJB Errors’ Appendix 3 - The Incompetence of James White Appendix 4 - Critique of James White’s The King James Only Controversy Appendix 1 - James White and the ‘King James Only Controversy’ so-called has been inserted with some annotations as Appendix 1 of this work for information. Additional appendices have been inserted for information as follows.

10 Appendix 2 – Testimonies to the Inspiration of the AV1611 – Summaries Appendix 3 – The 1611 Holy Bible and the USA Appendix 4 The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy – re: The King James Only Controversy by James White Appendix 5 - Seven Purifications of the Textus Receptus, the Received Text Appendix 6 – Answers to Superstitious Nonsense from Pastor Richard Klueg Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 show how far-reaching belief in the AV1611 as “All scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16 has been until very recent times. Jacob Prasch appears to be unaware of that extent of belief in the AV1611. Appendix 4 shows in detail that James White is not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Ja- cob Prasch lied in that respect as well. Appendix 5 shows in detail that Jacob Prasch lied in his article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas by labelling the 1611 Holy Bible p 15, para 9 as “a 17th century Anglican translation.” Appendix 5 also gives details of the “double heart” 1 Chronicles 12:33, Psalm 12:2 of Jacob Prasch and those of his mindset in declaring the 1611 Holy Bible to be “a valid translation” p 15, para 2, 10, p 16, para 1 i.e. three times while as this work will show, reviling both the 1611 Holy Bible and Bible believers throughout both his article and his letters to this writer. See opening graphic and Paul’s warning to Bible believers. “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips” Romans 3:13. Appendix 6 shows that Richard Klueg, another arch-enemy and embittered critic of the 1611 Holy Bible, is a Jacob Prasch clone or vice-versa and “Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear” Psalm 58:4 in that they are ideological heirs and suc- cessors of the king of Ammon insofar as “Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him” Judges 11:28. See Introduction. Para 7, p 11 states “KJV Only advocates will point out that Virginia Mollenkott whose views on les- bianism were unknown when she was briefly consulted in a minor way not on matters of translation but matters of English style for the NIV, discredits the NIV”. The truth is that Mollenkott is a sex pervert. She does not merely have “views”. Nevertheless, these “views” eliminated the word “sodomite” from the NIV, whose committee has since tried to minimise her influence, which was clearly not “minor”. See Dr. Riplinger’s book Which Bible is God’s Word?” p 29, 67-68. On p 12, para 3, you call James I “a drunken sodomite who murdered Born Again Christians”. The real murderers were Guy Fawkes and the other Jesuit-inspired gun powder plotters, who attempted to assassinate James and his parliament; the main accusers of James I were M. Fontenay, another plotter and An- thony Weldon, who sought revenge for having been excluded from court circles. See Battle Cry, Sept./Oct. 1985, Chick Publications, Chino, Calif., citing distinguished historians such as Lady An- tonia Fraser. The myth of James’ alleged drunken homosexuality has been totally exploded by Ste- phen Costan’s [Coston’s] definitive work King James Unjustly Accused? Königswort, 1996. The statement that “homosexuals are KING JAMES ONLY”, para 4, p 12, is fatuous. Circulation on a university campus of the “KJV only” tract Doom Town, Chick Publications, is enough to get a member of academic staff temporarily suspended by senior management after complaints from student sex perverts. I know; it happened to me in April 1994. Paras 6 p 12 states “The Mormon Cult is strongly KING JAMES ONLY”. They are not. As even your article indicates, they are KJV - PLUS the Book of Mormon, which is heresy. Para 7 p 12 states “After the [NWT] the Jehovah’s Witnesses prefer the KJV because…the KJV reduces the Holy Spirit from a person to an ‘it’ (the KJV translators…failed to grasp that gender in Greek does [not] mean what gender does in English)”. No, you failed to grasp that scripture draws a distinction between the Person of the Holy Spirit and His office, or ministry. Compare John 16:13 and Romans 8:16. (In passing, your alteration of “year” in Amos 4:4, AV1611, to “day” para 5, p 15, is an LXX 11 corruption. The King James translators gave the correct idiomatic rendering of “three years of days”. See Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:12.) Para 10 p 12 states “the 1611 KJV not only contains the Apocryphal books, but like the Roman Cath- olic bibles cites them as scripture…Genesis 3:6 with the Apocryphal Ecclesiasticus 25:26”. Once again you mislead your readers. The 1611 Holy Bible contains the Apocrypha between the Testa- ments, unlike the Catholic bibles, which have it as part of the Old Testament. The title page of the 1611 AV1611 refers to “The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament and the New”, not to the Apocrypha. The Trinitarian Bible Society informed me privately that the Church of England in the 16th and 17th centuries required that the Apocrypha be included “in all printed Bibles, i.e. including the Geneva Bible” (to which you allude favourably on p 13, para 11) TBS emphasis. Further, a marginal reference does not confer the status of scripture on that reference, unless it is clearly from one of the Testaments, anymore than a scriptural reference to heathen poetry makes the poet an apostle, Acts 17:28. The Geneva Bible, against which you have no complaint, contains many marginal notes but these are not scripture. Finally, Dr. Grady’s book Final Authority, which you appear to have read, p 1 para 4, states that the King James translators gave 7 reasons why the Apocrypha is not scripture. Dr. Sam Gipp lists these reasons in The Answer Book, p 99-100. Para 11 p 12, para 1 p 13 states that “so influenced by Roman Catholicism is the KJV that it calls the Resurrection Day ‘Easter’”. You fail to give the reference, Acts 12:4, which is referring to the in- tentions of the heathen king, Herod, which would have been centred on the pagan holiday of Easter, not the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. See The Answer Book, p 3ff. Para 12 p 13 states “Gail Riplinger, whose only qualifications are in home economics not biblical language or manuscript history was debunked as a charlatan and an academic fraud by Christian Research Institute”. Your statement is a blatant lie. See Which Bible is God’s Word? p 5ff and note Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”. Para 2 p 14 states “The 1611 KJV has twelve pages outlining for each day of the year the risings and settings of the sun, ritual Psalms prescribed for each specific day, and required scripture readings. This is followed by a calendar of religious holy days that must be observed…Such legalistic trash merely replaces the Mosaic calendar of Old Testament [feasts]…with a wholly unbiblical string of Roman Catholic ones. How Judaised, legalistic, and above all Roman Catholic and Ecumenical can a version of the bible be?”. You fail to mention how any of the introductory pages to the 1611 AV1611 have any bearing on the Text and the words of the AV1611 and you also fail to mention how any of these pages actually contradict scripture. The King James translators were well aware of your attitude when they composed The Epistle Dedicatory. “We shall be maligned by self conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil”. Exactly, because nowhere in your article do you actually reveal what “God’s holy Truth” is. You refer only to “loyalty and accuracy to [sic] the majority text manuscripts” para 10, p 15. You accuse Dr. Riplinger of “kabbalistic gnostic mysticism”, para 4, p 14, akin to “Michael Dros- nin’s ‘Bible Codes’” para 3, p 14. Clearly you have not made an honest evaluation of her book The Language of the King James Bible, which describes the precise and self-interpreting structure of the AV1611’s wording and bears no relation whatsoever to Drosnin’s ‘codes’. See Does God Believe in Atheists? John Blanchard, Evangelical Press 2000, p 407-408. For the time being, I leave you with this quote from Thomas DeWitt Talmage of the Dutch Re- formed Church, a great minister of the Book during the latter part of the 19th century. “Now let us divide off...Let those people who do not believe the Bible and who are critical of this and that part of it, go clear over to the other side. Let them stand behind the devil's guns...Give us the out-and-out opposition of infidelity rather than the work of these hybrid theologians, these mongrel ecclesiastics, these half-evoluted people who BELIEVE the Bible and do NOT believe it. I TAKE UP THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION; I CONSIDER IT TO BE A PERFECT BIBLE” (Vol. 4, p187; Vol. 18, p255). 12 Yours sincerely Alan O’Reilly Copy: Gail Riplinger, C/- A.V. Publications Corp. Michael Clark, C/- The Covenant Publishing Company Limited

13 Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident” Proverbs 14:16.

14 Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Continued “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident” Proverbs 14:16.

15 January 28th 2002 Jacob Prasch C/- MORIEL United Kingdom P. O. Box 201 Maidenhead, Berks SL6 9FB England Dear Mr. Prasch I am in receipt of your letter of January 7th and whilst I take note of your final sentence, I cannot condone your persistent falsehoods about the Holy Bible and genuine Bible believers. Moreover, given that you no doubt have numerous public speaking engagements, including one at the Ports- mouth Guildhall on March 26th –28th this year, I would urge you to desist from denigrating the Holy Bible, especially before an audience. I urge this on the basis of Galatians 6:7, 8, which contains the simple but profound admonition, “God is not mocked…”. Reading your comments about King James and Dr. Mrs. Riplinger, it is clear that you did not make an honest evaluation of the information that I put before you, so I have little to write in reply. I am not surprised of course that material calumniating James I continues to circulate. David Ralston’s article in Battle Cry, Sept./Oct. 1985 indicates that James I broke the back of witchcraft in Scotland during his reign and the enemy understandably has a long memory. I referred to Dr. Mrs. Riplinger as “Dr.” because Dr. Bill Grady used that title for her in his book What Hath God Wrought! on p 290. You may wish to take issue with Dr. Grady on that matter but I would reiterate what Dr. Riplinger stated in Which Bible Is God’s Word?, “that truth is independent of who presents it”. I would also draw your attention to 1 Corinthians 6:4b which states “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church” and would caution against adopting the kind of Pharisaic attitude expressed in John 7:49 “But this people who knoweth not the law are accursed”. Dr. Riplinger’s collation of texts, versions and manuscripts would not have necessitated formal training in Greek on her part, because she had full access to the extensive works of genuine textual scholars such as Codex B and its Allies, by Herman Hoskier. Such works are effectively definitive in their respective fields and it is therefore not necessary to re-invent the wheel. Further, none of Dr. Riplinger’s detractors have ever demonstrated that any of her renderings of Greek texts etc. are in error and it is therefore not only graceless but also dishonest to dismiss her as “a charlatan”. Concerning your additional points, 2-5, a few remarks are in order. Young’s Concordance shows that yanim [yamim] is rendered “year” or “yearly” more than a dozen times in an AV1611 and the context of these expressions shows overwhelmingly that the AV1611 is correct. Given that the AV1611 translators included men like Dr. Miles Smith, who “had Hebrew at his fingers’ ends”, Which Bible?, p 18, this is not surprising. The TBS leaflet on the LXX, no. 30, gives no evidence for the existence of a pre-Christian LXX and there are no LXX manuscripts that pre-date the 3rd century AD. Brenton’s LXX cites the 4th century AD Codices Alexandrinus, Vati- canus and Sinaiticus as the basis for its text. See Which Bible is God’s Word? p 76 and The Mytho- logical Septuagint by Dr. Ruckman for details. The “comparison of Paul’s citation of a Greek poet to a cross-reference of a biblical text” is entirely valid. From the huge volume of heathen poetry, one statement emerged that agreed with scripture, to which Paul drew attention but that does not make heathen poetry ‘scripture’. Neither does an apocryphal statement that agrees with scripture give it the status of ‘scripture’ – any more than devotional books that agree with scripture could themselves be considered ‘scripture’. The Holy Spirit is rightly referred to as ‘it’ - or more precisely “itself”, as in Romans 8:16, 17, 26 – with respect to His ministry, because, John 16:8-11 notwithstanding, the Lord Jesus Christ compared the essence of the Spirit’s ministry to a neuter force. This is why the word pneuma is neuter. He stated in John 3:8, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit”. By 16 contrast, the angel of the Lord specifically designated Jesus’ ministry as that of a personal Saviour to Israel, Matthew 1:21. See also Romans 15:8. No honest reader of the AV1611 could therefore possibly get confused over the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and His ministry. In Romans 14:5 it is permissable [permissible] that “one man esteemeth one day above another” and Colossians 2:16 acknowledges that “an holyday” has real existence as “a shadow of things to come”, e.g. Isaiah 66. There are no prohibitions in these verses about how a church organises – or does not organise - the readings of lessons and Psalms during the year, which is the main reason for the calendar listings in the 1611 AV1611. Colossians 2:16 simply says “Let no man therefore judge you…”, whether or not one followed the Church of England pattern. According to scripture, there is liberty for both persuasions – but historically the dissemination of the AV1611 was accompanied by a growth in nonconformity, both in Britain and in the USA so your objection to the 1611 AV1611’s inclusion of a church calendar is mere gnat-straining, Matthew 23:24. Under this point you make reference to “the God-inspired text”. However, aside from “the original autographs” which no longer exist, you do not state where such a text can be found, in a form suitable for the ordinary believer, who would have neither time nor inclination to study Masoretic He- brew. DeWitt Talmage did so, which was the reason for including his exhortation – his theology and James I’s alleged treatment of Calvinists are beside the point. Your reluctance at this point, together with your wholly unwarranted and entirely unsubstantiated condemnation of Dr. Riplinger’s book The Language of the King James Bible, is instructive because it points to the real ‘cabalistic’ system, with respect to the modern perception of ‘scripture’. It is this. The Bible critic uses his education in ‘the original languages’ to set himself up as a kind of ‘high priest’ of scripture to whom all others must defer who wish to know what God actually said and what God’s words actually are. 2015 Update. In repeated violation of the priesthood of all believers, 1 Peter 2:5, 9 The Book that God has exalted, not only above “original autographs”, edited texts and scholarly opinion but even above His own name, Psalm 138:2, has this admonition for the self-made ‘high priest’. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered” Proverbs 28:26. Yours sincerely Alan O’Reilly Copy: Gail Riplinger, C/- A.V. Publications Corp. Michael Clark, C/- The Covenant Publishing Company Limited

17 January 28th 2002 Jacob Prasch C/- MORIEL United Kingdom P. O. Box 201 Maidenhead, Berks SL6 9FB England Dear Mr. Prasch I am in receipt of your letter of January 7th and whilst taking note of your last sentence, I believe I am at liberty to reply that you have not made an honest evaluation of the information that was put before you. Instead you simply retreated into the same kind of assertion that characterised your original article. The scripture itself has this to say about your response: “There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart” Nehemiah 6:8b. Finally, I would strongly urge you to desist from denigrating the Book that God wrote, especially before an audience, since you obviously have many public speaking engagements, such as F.A.C.T. 2002. I would remind you that “God is not mocked…” Galatians 6:7. Yours sincerely Alan O’Reilly Copy: Gail Riplinger, C/- A.V. Publications Corp. Michael Clark, C/- The Covenant Publishing Company Limited

18 Jacob Prasch Backlash 2 “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident” Proverbs 14:16.

19 Annotations to Letters of August 29th 2001, January 28th 2002 Following Jacob Prasch Back- lashes 1, 2 Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 was, as will be shown, largely an exercise in evasion and blatant falsehood. Specific remarks follow. It should be noted again, see remarks above with respect to Appen- dix 5, that Jacob Prasch adopts a two-faced stance in his article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas with respect to the 1611 Holy Bible in order to “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” Romans 16:18. P 15, para 2: “I personally enjoy the KJV for its prose and its translation errors notwithstanding, I sometimes read it devotionally along side (sic) the original languages because on the whole it [the AV1611] remains a valid translation.” Nowhere in either his article or his correspondence does Jacob Prasch seem to understand that a book cannot be read alongside languages. The two are not equivalent. A book has to be read alongside a book or other document. Jacob Prasch gives no indication of where he reads “the original languages” but his comment reveals that his ‘bible’ is not any book on the face of the earth but merely “the imagination of his own heart” Jeremiah 23:12 i.e. “I will be like the most High” Isaiah 14:14. P 15, para 10: “KJV is a valid translation (sic); KJV Only however is a cause of ecumenism and christian (sic) Darwinianism.” Jacob Prasch’s poor grammar serves only to show that “the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness” Proverbs 12:23. Jacob Prasch cannot and does not substantiate any of his accusations against “KJV Only” so-called and he forgets that all of the cults and falsehoods that he mentions have but one source – Rome “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” Revelation 17:5. Rome and therefore all her abominable offspring hate the 1611 Holy Bible and have striven throughout the centuries to eliminate it. See kjv.benabraham.com/html/our_authorized_bible_vindicated.html Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin Wilkinson, Chapter 7, Three hundred year attack on the King James Bible and this extract, this writer’s emphases. Jacob Prasch is simply one in a long line of anti-Biblical infidels. The King James Bible had hardly begun its career before enemies commenced to fall upon it. Though it has been with us for three hundred years in splendid leadership — a striking phenomenon — nevertheless, as the years increase, the attacks become more furious. If the book were a dangerous document, a source of corrupting influence and a nuisance, we would wonder why it has been necessary to assail it since it would naturally die of its own weakness. But when it is a divine blessing of great worth, a faultless power of transforming influence, who can it be who are so stirred up as to deliver against it one assault after another? Great theological seminaries, in many lands, led by accepted teachers of learning, are laboring constantly to tear it to pieces. Point us out anywhere, any situation similar concerning the sacred books of any other religion, or even of Shakespeare, or of any other work of literature. Especially since 1814 when the Jesuits were restored by order of the Pope — if they needed restoration — have the attacks by Catholic scholars on the Bible, and by other scholars who are Protestants in name, become bitter. See remarks later on The Secret Plan. Pp 15-16, Conclusion: “There is nothing wrong with reading the King James Bible...the problem is not the King James Version, it is a valid translation...The problem is with ‘KJV ONLY’ and the agendas of KJV ONLY. These are more concerned with the bible version one reads more (sic) than what the bible, (even more than what the KJV version (sic) itself says), (sic) and more than what the original autographs say. The KJV ONLY cause is a Mormon cause, it is a Gay & Lesbian cause, it is a racist cause, it is a judaised (sic) kabbalistic cause, and it is an Ecumenical cause...” Again, Jacob Prasch cannot and does not substantiate any of his accusations against “KJV Only” so- called. Note again the statements above on Rome “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” Revelation 17:5 and Ben- jamin Wilkinson’s disclosures on Three hundred year attack on the King James Bible. 20 It should be noted further that Jacob Prasch cannot and does not identify: • “the bible” as a single document between two covers i.e. a book that can be handled, circulated, acquired and read in “words easy to be understood” 1 Corinthians 14:9 by “them...who are least esteemed in the church” 1 Corinthians 6:4 in accordance with the priesthood of all believers, 1 Peter 2:5, 9 • “the original autographs” as a single document, even as a facsimile document, between two covers i.e. a book that can be handled, circulated, acquired and read in “words easy to be understood” 1 Corinthians 14:9 by “them...who are least esteemed in the church” 1 Corinthians 6:4 in accordance with the priesthood of all believers, 1 Peter 2:5, 9 • One testimony in writing by one “Mormon...Gay & Lesbian...racist...judaised (sic) kabbalist...Ecumenical” who professes unequivocally that the 1611 Holy Bible is “All scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16. King Solomon gave the best advice about Jacob Prasch long ago. What follows concerning Jacob Prasch’s letters to this writer will further illustrate the wisdom of King Solomon’s words against Ja- cob Prasch. “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge” Proverbs 14:7. Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Paras 1, 2 These paragraphs consist mostly of Jacob Prasch’s ad hominem attacks on Sister Riplinger and Dr Ruckman that are totally lacking in both truth and substance and therefore in themselves betray the satanic mindset of Jacob Prasch, likewise that in addition to being habitually dishonest and chroni- cally evasive, he is essentially belligerent and thick i.e. wilfully ignorant “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” 1 Corinthians 14:38. “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding” Proverbs 17:28. Concerning Sister Riplinger and her qualifications for Biblical research together with her doctorate note first that Jacob Prasch evaded the statement in this writer’s letter of August 29th 2001 Para 12 p 13 states “Gail Riplinger, whose only qualifications are in home economics not biblical language or manuscript history was debunked as a charlatan and an academic fraud by Christian Research Insti- tute”. Your statement is a blatant lie. See Which Bible is God’s Word? p 5ff and note Exodus 20:16 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” because he failed to check the reference given. It is also noteworthy that Jacob Prasch gave a very poor, sketchy and misleading evaluation of Sister Riplinger’s book New Age Bible Versions on his site in 2004. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch pp 12ff/ As King Solomon observed “The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason” Proverbs 26:16. It will be observed that Jacob Prasch epitomises “the sluggard...wiser in his own conceit” throughout his responses though as indicated he is an excessively belligerent one. That is his only real strong point and he therefore in turn epitomises the graphic on the opening page of this study. Jacob Prasch states in Para 2 that “...if anyone has “borne false witness”, sir [no need to be formal, this writer won’t be but will rather “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” Proverbs 26:5], it is you. Thomas Ice...conducted and interview of (sic) Gail Riplinger on behalf of Christian Research Institute, and as I accurately reported, she was debunked as a charlatan and a fraud who could not, herself, even read the Greek language...” Jacob Prasch “accurately reported” nothing. Typically, Jacob Prasch lied. This writer answered Jacob Prasch’s string of lies about Sister Riplinger in the letter of January 28th 2002 as follows. 21 Reading your comments about King James and Dr. Mrs. Riplinger, it is clear that you did not make an honest evaluation of the information that I put before you, so I have little to write in reply. I am not surprised of course that material calumniating James I continues to circulate. David Ralston’s article in Battle Cry, Sept./Oct. 1985 indicates that James I broke the back of witchcraft in Scotland during his reign and the enemy understandably has a long memory. I referred to Dr. Mrs. Riplinger as “Dr.” because Dr. Bill Grady used that title for her in his book What Hath God Wrought! on p 290. You may wish to take issue with Dr. Grady on that matter but I would reiterate what Dr. Riplinger stated in Which Bible Is God’s Word?, “that truth is independent of who presents it”. I would also draw your attention to 1 Corinthians 6:4b which states “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church” and would caution against adopting the kind of Pharisaic attitude expressed in John 7:49 “But this people who knoweth not the law are accursed”. Dr. Riplinger’s collation of texts, versions and manuscripts would not have necessitated formal training in Greek on her part, because she had full access to the extensive works of genuine textual scholars such as Codex B and its Allies, by Herman Hoskier. Such works are effectively definitive in their respective fields and it is therefore not necessary to re-invent the wheel. Further, none of Dr. Riplinger’s detractors have ever demonstrated that any of her renderings of Greek texts etc. are in error and it is therefore not only graceless but also dishonest to dismiss her as “a charlatan”. See the following with respect to Sister Riplinger and 1st century Greek: www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php Gail Riplinger Answers her critics.

22 GAIL RIPLINGER ANSWERS HER CRITICS Acts 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. Acts 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, WHICH THEY COULD NOT PROVE... Weak-minded and sour-spirited folks must tar and feather their opponent, so that the opponent is no longer recognizable. They darken their character, so that no one will want to read their books and thereby discover that they have been wrong in some area, and cannot even give a good answer. (Someone wisely said, “It’s what you learn after you ‘know it all’ that counts)... Psalm 34:2 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. Evidently, those who aren’t “humble” are not glad when someone is trying to give God the glory. The Bible says that in the last days men shall be “proud, boasters” (Romans 1:30). Back in the early 90s when someone asked me if I spoke Greek, I said, “No,” as I assumed that their definition of speaking Greek was the same as mine and my associates at the University. Speaking Greek means being able to pick up Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, or the Argonautica and Hesi- od’s Theogony and read them without a dictionary, as one would read the morning newspaper. I soon found out that in the apostate Christian milieu, ‘reading Greek’ was defined as 1.) having passed a Greek course or two by the skin of their teeth, 2.) having therein memorized a few things, which they quickly forgot, and now 3.) using an interlinear or lexicon, reading only its ENGLISH, to expound upon the English Holy Bible. I had passed that stage over forty years ago while teaching English to Greek (Japanese, Spanish, Italian, Lithuanian, etc.) speaking adults for three years. Now, forty some years later, several dozen of which were spent with my nose buried in Greek nonsense, I demonstrated to the readers of Hazardous Materials that W.E. Vine could not read Greek as well as I could. The Dean Burgon Society’s so-called Greek expert, Mr. Kirk DiVietro, wrongly said he thought, “Every other difference but one was insignificant” between Scrivener’s and Stephanus’ Greek texts.” Where has he collated and published the differences between these texts for all to see in great detail, as I have? DiVietro said that according to the English in his Greek lexicon, ‘sin’ was to ‘miss the mark.’ He added, “You can’t learn that from English.” But the words he used are ‘ENGLISH.’ In fact, ‘missing the mark’ is an inconsequential slip that might occur in archery. It is the type of watered-down lexical jargon used in the ‘seeker sensitive,’ ‘Let’s not offend the sinner’ Rick Warren churches. Sin is so grave that it is eternal in its consequences. As [wilful] sinners, we are not even aiming at the “mark.” Sin’s arrows are so deadly that they pierced our Saviour’s side. Sin is marching defiantly away from God and his goodness and wisdom, not aiming for him and slipping ever so slightly off center. Lexicons ALWAYS soften, dilute, and secularize the Bible (‘sky’ for ‘heaven’; ‘breath’ for ‘spirit,’ etc). DiVietro misrepresented me when he said I said the KJB “brought proto-English up to modern English.” Although I had sent him In Awe of Thy Word as a free gift, he obviously did not read or comprehend it. The thesis was that the KJB is not “modern English”; it is Biblical English. If the DBS men spoke Greek as aptly as they pretend, they would have quickly recognized the fake pen name used by the ‘author’ of the book they promote to smear me. The first name, ‘Aletheia,’ is made up of ‘a’ meaning ‘not’ and letheia which means ‘forget.’ It is a pagan Greek goddess. The last name identifies the author as the male homosexual who has been used to smear me for years by the wealthy new version publishers. He refers to himself on the internet as “the Irish lass” and he refers to the war he and his team are waging against KJB fundamental- ists and me as the “inquisition.” If an author will not place their true name on a book cover, one can be sure their book’s contents are equally dishonest. The apostles were also plagued by “lewd fellows of the baser sort.” There is no new thing under the sun. Jacob Prasch states further in Para 2, without any substance, that “[Dr Riplinger’s] background is, indeed, in home economics...[not] in academically complex fields where she is void of any scholarly expertise. I suggest you ask her where she obtained her doctorate, and in what field.” 23 Jacob Prasch has lied again about “[Dr Riplinger’s] background,” having failed again to check the reference that he was given. See above. That material is now found in the 2007 Edition of Which Bible is God’s Word? pp 159-161 where Sister Riplinger states “For the first ten years of my academic career I researched and taught in the area of the built environment...” Sister Riplinger taught in the area of the built environment at Kent State University, New Age Bible Versions pp 3-4. This is what Douglas L. Steidl, FAIA, currently the Dean of the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at Kent State University said about teaching in the area of the built environment. See www2.kent.edu/caed/about/. The College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED) provides opportunities for personal growth through design exploration integrated with the practical aspects associated with professional life. Whether the degree program is in architecture, interior design, architectural studies or urban design the eventual outcome is a professional who understands how the built environment can im- prove the quality of life for all citizens, while preserving the limited resources of this planet. Readers may draw their own conclusions from the above with respect to Sister Riplinger’s background. Further to Sister Riplinger’s background see www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only- 7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus three unclean spirits – Revelation 16 p 62 and this extract. No format changes have been made. Concerning Sister Riplinger’s academic qualifications, Mr Owers failed to check Which Bible Is God’s Word? by Gail Riplinger 1st Edition 1994 pp 5-7 where Sister Riplinger lists her academic qualifications in detail. That list shows that Mr Owers lied about Sister Riplinger’s academic qualifications, about which she states: “At the Lord’s leading, and because of my Christian convictions, I have spent the last eight years researching, on a full-time basis, the transmission, text, and translations of the holy scriptures. I am more qualified, I suspect, than my detractors, to discuss the variant readings in the new translations because, unlike them, I have done a six-year-long, laborious, word-for-word collation of these texts. This was made possible because of my disability retirement from the university. “But we must remember...God said, “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15). I have just paraded my abominations before my readers. Academic credentials have never been God’s criteria for using a person. Moses did not go to Desert State for forty years.” Mr Owers claims that Sister Riplinger’s academic qualifications did not fit her for researching theology and archaic languages. They fitted her to compile New Age Bible Versions and none of Sister Riplinger’s detractors from the time of the book’s publication to the present, 21 years later, has been able to disprove that. Concerning Sister Riplinger’s doctorate see the following from The Anchor Landmark Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2009 pp 4-5: www.landmarkbaptistcollege.com/resources/Anchor/December%20Anchor.pdf. Note that Internet Explorer readily accommodates the above link. Mozilla Firefox does not although it appears that the PDF file can easily be saved from either browser.

The above study shows that Jacob Prasch’s insinuation against Sister Riplinger in his efforts to denigrate her work is yet another lie on his part and more spat venom. See opening graphic. Sister Riplinger’s doctorate is an honorary doctorate awarded for her extensive and painstaking research into Biblical texts that far outclasses anything put forward by Jacob Prasch in his later 2004 criticisms of the 1611 Holy and Sister Riplinger. 26 See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611Holy Bible versus Lying Jacob Prasch and The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch. Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Para 3, Point 1 Jacob Prasch responds with sheer evasion with respect to Dr Virginia Mollenkott and the NIV, com- pounding his evasion with a lie about the NIV, as will be shown. See letter August 29th 2001. Jacob Prasch had insisted in his anti-Biblical article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas, from the Summer/Autumn 2001 issue of the Moriel Prayer and Newsletter that “KJV Only advocates will point out that Virginia Mollenkott whose views on lesbian- ism were unknown when she was briefly consulted in a minor way not on matters of translation but matters of English style for the NIV, discredits the NIV”. This writer answered that comment as follows in the letter of August 29th 2001 as follows. The truth is that Mollenkott is a sex pervert. She does not merely have “views”. Nevertheless, these “views” eliminated the word “sodomite” from the NIV, whose committee has since tried to minimise her influence, which was clearly not “minor”. See Dr. Riplinger’s book Which Bible is God’s Word?” p 29, 67-68. Jacob Prasch’s cowardly evasion in Para 3, Point 1 reads “At no point did I, or our ministry, in favourable manner, cite Virginia Mollenkott, nor deny that the term “sodomite” was not used in the NIV (a version I myself do not endorse).” Any favourable citation of Virginia Mollenkott was not the point. Neither was any denial that the NIV cuts out the term “sodomite,” something that is undeniable. The point that Jacob Prasch evaded and lied about was and is that, as indicated above, Virginia Mollenkott’s influence on the NIV was not “minor” but major as Sister Riplinger explains in detail, her emphases. See www.avpublications.com/avnew/content/Critiqued/james6.html The James White Controversy Part 6. “White is not alone in his ever evolving and changing ‘story’. He states that Virginia Mollenkott worked on the NIV for “five months.” The NIV Translation Center seems to have been telling call- ers this over the phone, but when written confirmation is requested, that time period is denied. Ken- neth Barker wrote in a letter (dated July 21, 1994), “I do not know who at IBS [International Bible Society] told you that Mollenkott’s involvement as a literary consultant was five months but, whoev- er it was, he or she was mistaken.” He states that she was involved “in the earliest stages of the translation work (in the late sixties and early seventies...)” [The NIV began in 1966 and the N.T. was published in 1973.] In case the reader has the NIV Translation Center’s response, “The NIV and Homosexual and Lesbian Practice,” you will note that the ‘story’ has changed. In that article it said, “earliest stages of the translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960’s).” A letter from Virginia Mollenkott herself states, “I worked as NIV stylistic consultant for several years. To my knowledge throughout the final years of the work when initial translations were being polished.” (June 12, 1994) [emphasis mine]. “When presented with the NIV Translation Center’s version she writes, “If you want to do me a favor, you could set the record straight with IBS in Colorado Springs. But perhaps they would rather not be disturbed by the facts?!” (June 20, 1994). Was it months or years? Seems White and the NIV Translation Center, “would rather not be disturbed by the facts”! White’s notion that, “When she took stands contrary to Biblical standards, she was removed from the project” is denied by Mol- lenkott, who states in a letter (Jan. 20, 1995), ““You are right that Barker is playing little word games. It would be a different story if Edwin Palmer were still alive: he knew me, had heard me speak, and sent me sheaf after sheaf of translations to review over a period of three or more years including several gift editions for the committee members when the work was first completed.”” 27 Concerning the NIV “a version I myself do not endorse” according to Jacob Prasch see www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch pp 10, 22, 127, 136 and the following extracts by Jacob Prasch himself, this writer’s emphases. These extracts will show that though an inveterate liar, Jacob Prasch is not a good liar because a good liar has to have a good memory. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not “corrupt” but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. A little patience and a little study will reward the diligent student with answers to all of those passages cited by KJV Only advocates regarding alleged doctrinal “corruption.” In each case the reputa- ble modern translations will be cleared of the charge...Many other examples could be examined that confirm that modern translations such as the NASB and NIV, far from being corrupt, are in fact the best examples of faithful English translations of the best Greek texts we have available to us. The Christian who studies, memorizes, and obeys the Scriptures as he or she finds them in modern English translations can be confident in the text he or she uses. Jacob Prasch has not excluded the NIV from modern English translations in which he invites today’s believer to repose confidence. Jacob Prasch continues in Para 3, Point 1 with unsubstantiated charges against King James 1st. He insists that “Indeed, only today, I came across a material (sic) documenting the influence of King James in the formation of Freemasonry.” Jacob Prasch was too much of a coward to specify said document so King Solomon’s observation applies, likewise to the rest of his unsubstantiated dogma with which he concludes Para 3, Point 1. “As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come” Prov- erbs 26:2. Concerning Jacob Prasch’s dogma that “I simply pointed out that historian upon historian cites your (sic) view of James I as a filthy sodomite, who persecuted evangelical Christians such as Puritan non-conformists,” the only historical work that Jacob Prasch references in his anti-Biblical article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas against King James 1st is what he terms “the renowned Streams of Civilization (Volume ii).” This supposedly “renowned” volume is a high school text book written by a certain Garry J. Moes for Grade 10 15-16 year-olds. See: www.christianbook.com/streams-civilization-volume-2-grade-10/garry- moes/9781930367463/pd/25772. According to Jacob Prasch, this supposedly “renowned” volume “reports” various accusations against King James 1st i.e. it doesn’t research them. This is not surprising because Mr Moes is himself a professional writer and journalist www.amazon.com/Garry-J.-Moes/e/B00TMDWOXC, not an in-depth researcher like Stephen A. Coston Sr author of King James Unjustly Accused? or distinguished historian Lady Antonia Fraser authoress of King James VI of Scotland I of England. In sum, “the renowned Streams of Civilization (Volume ii)” cannot be deemed authoritative against King James 1st. Garry J. Moes obviously spun his segment on King James 1st with scant regard for the facts in sensationalist journalese to appeal to impressionable teenagers and Jacob Prasch does not seem to have matured beyond that level. Stephen A. Coston Sr. And Lady Antonia Fraser have shown that the accusations against King James 1st have come from untrustworthy sources, whom various anti-King James writers and critics have aped in succession, up to and including Garry J. Moes and Jacob Prasch. 28 See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php Answers to the Wolf-Man Part 1 pp 53-57. No changes in format have been made. The extract starts with the Wolf- Man’s Question 50, which shows that he has the same twisted mentality as Job Prasch. This writer’s response follows. It applies as much to Jacob Prasch as it does to Grievous Wolf aka the Wolf Man. Would you contend that God waited until a king named “James” sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an “Epistle Dedicatory” that praises this king as “most dread Sovereign...Your Majesty’s Royal Person...” – If the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documenta- tion – Antonia Fraser - “King James VI of Scotland, I of England” Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham - “The Making of a King” Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott - “James I” Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson - “King James VI & I” Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383- 386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]. Did God inspire a homosexual to give us the only inspired Word of God for the English people? Can homosexuals take credit for the KJV? ...Concerning the person of King James 1st, Grievous Wolf is lying again. See Questions 10, 15, 16, 25, 26, 37. It should be noted that while Grievous Wolf lists certain historians who have written books on King James 1st, he does not cite anything that they say about James 1st. He has only given page references and publishers’ details in order to portray himself as a researcher. Like Amnon’s friend Jonadab, Grievous would be a dangerous friend to have around. “But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother: and Jonadab was a very subtil man” 2 Samuel 13:3. Yet again, Grievous Wolf has resorted to insinuation. See Introduction, Questions 12, 16, 28, 31, 45, 46. The historical material on James 1st follows, starting with this material from this writer’s earlier work “O Biblios” – The Book, Section 12.3, pp 270-272. See pp 211ff of the uploaded file, www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/. The extract follows with an additional reference cited, slight edits and an insertion from the uploaded file labelled *2012. Most of the material on James in Chapter 4 [of “O Biblios”] was stated specifically to consist of extracts from a Christian Newsletter, Battle Cry Sept./Oct. 1985. A copy of the item could have been forwarded to our critic upon request. Although the author, Baptist Pastor David Ralston, does not explicitly reference every quotation about James which he uses in his article, he does list his sources. They include the well-known works by Caroline Bingham, William McElwee and Lady Antonia Fraser. Any objective examination of these extracts would reveal that their main purpose was not to present James himself in any hue whatsoever. The purpose was to highlight the outstanding achievements of James’ reign, culminating in the publication of the Authorised Version. Whatever his shortcomings, James was a saved man*2012 whom God had endowed with great wisdom, great courage and Royal authority, essential qualifications for being “the principal Mover and Author of the work” of making “God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people” See The Epistle Dedicatory to the 1611 Holy Bible, www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm. *2012Note that Adam Nicolson in his book When God Spoke English, Harper Press, 2011, does his utmost to malign James 1st and the King James translators. However, Nicolson cannot detract from the worthiness of their achievement, as the title of his book unwittingly suggests. Harper Press is of course a division of Harper Collins, which may account in part for the denigratory nature of Nicol- son’s book with respect to James 1st and the King’s men, www.harpercollins.co.uk/about- harpercollins/Imprints/harper-press/Pages/HarperPress.aspx. See Section 5.1... Ralston makes it clear that much of the criticism of James stems from two main sources. One was “M. Fontenay, an agent for Mary Stuart who plotted for James’ throne” and who “fostered much of the slanderous assault against the king.” The other was Anthony Weldon, “who successfully black- 29 ened King James through the pen portrait he first published in 1650...Antonia Fraser writes, “In fairness to James, (Weldon) should never be quoted without the important rider that he had been excluded from Court circles and had in consequence, a pathological hatred of the Stuarts. Weldon has had his revenge for the slight injuries done to him.”” Conclusion of the extract Note again that although Grievous Wolf lists Lady Antonia Fraser as one of his sources, coward that he is, he fails to state anything that she actually said about James 1st. Her comments as cited by Da- vid Ralston above clearly reveal Wolf’s deceit and insinuation about James 1st. Note additional statements about King James 1st, which may be found here: See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ The KJB Story – 1611-2011 Abridged Appendix pp 1-4. Ralston has this conclusion about the real reason for the manifold criticisms levelled against King James 1st. Note how Ralston’s conclusion is supported by the Jesuit statement in The Secret Plan cited below. “King James was regarded by those of his own time as “The British Solomon.” He wanted the Holy Word of God to be in the hands of people, not chained to pulpits or hoarded in the cellars to be read only by Greek scholars… “Do the critics of the Holy Word of God believe they can discredit the preserved authoritative scriptures by destroying the reputation of the man who helped bring it to the people? I am of the conviction that this indeed is the real cause of the slander against James.” So is this writer, especially when the identity of the most implacable enemies of both James and the Bible associated with his name is unmasked. This site www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james-the_man.htm has a considerable amount of detailed information about King James 1st. It includes the Basilicon Doron, the Kingly Gift that James wrote in 1598 to his son Prince Henry, to instruct him in the manners, morals and ways of kingship. James wrote as follows on the scriptures and on godly living. “But when ye read the Scripture, read it with a sanctified & chast eare: admire reverently such ob- scure places as yee understand not, blaming onlie your owne incapacitie; read with delite the playne places; and studie carefullie to understand those that are somewhate difficile: preasse to be a good textuare [student], for the Scripture is ever the best interpreter of it selfe… “Since al that is necessarie for salvation is contayned in the Scripture: for in anything that is expres- ly commanded or prohibited in the booke of God, ye cannot be over precise even in the least thing, counting every sin (not according to the light estimation and common use of it in the world) but as the book of God counteth of it:” See www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/basilico-king_james1.htm. Any young person could benefit from reading the Basilicon Doron, including another young prince named Henry and all his friends and family. Concerning James 1st’s implacable enemies and those of the Book forever associated with his name, with whom Grievous Wolf is in suitable company, note the following. Observe how much the Jesuits hated the 1611 Holy Bible, along with the king who approved its translation. This is from The Secret Plan, compiled in the Jesuit College near Turin in Northern Italy in 1825. The plan was written up by Fr. Leone, SJ, translated and published in 1848 by Augusta Cooke. This is what the Jesuits had to say about the Authorized King James Bible of 1611. “Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it [1881, Revised Version, Westcott and Hort, Cambridge University; 1881, ‘Originals-onlyism,’ Hodge and Warfield, Princeton Theological Seminary, “Traitors, heady, highminded” 2 Timothy 3:4]...for 30 three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us.” The Jesuit collusion in the Gunpowder Plot is documented in Jesuit Plots from Elizabethan to Mod- ern [1930s] Times by Albert Close, The Protestant Truth Society. See: protestanttruth.com/christian-bookshop/. The venom directed by the likes of Grievous Wolf at King James 1st and the Book with which he is forever associated is therefore not surprising. See also: The King James Version Defended, standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf, Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? by David W. Daniels, p 111, www.chick.com/products/item?stk=1252&ue=d, The Holy Bible Versus the Unholy Church, Revelation 17:1-5 by Alan O’Reilly, www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/, In Awe of Thy Word by Dr Mrs Gail Riplinger, A. V. Publications, Corp., www.avpublications.com, pp 553, 571ff, King James And His Translators by Dr Mrs Gail Riplinger, A. V. Publications, Corp., www.avpublications.com. The definitive work about King James 1st, is King James Unjustly Accused? by Stephen A. Coston Snr., Konigswort, 7245 34th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33710-1315 www.amazon.co.uk/James-Scotland-England-Unjustly-Accused/dp/0965677737. Stephen Coston’s work decisively shows Grievous Wolf to be the craven liar that he is [and Jacob Prasch], as the following material proves. Grievous Wolf refers to historians Caroline Bingham, Ot- to J. Scott and David H. Wilson. Stephen Coston, p 230, quotes from Caroline Bingham’s book The Making of a King p 132, where the author wrote that a certain John Hacket started a smear campaign against James 1st that Bingham dismisses as mere court gossip. Coston reveals that Hacket was a Puritan adversary of James 1st who, according to Bingham, could only circulate hints against James that could never be substantiated. Coston gives an overview of the book by Otto J. Scott entitled James I the Fool as King (Grievous Wolf neglected to give the book’s full title) in his Appendix on the libelling of James 1st, pp 343ff. Coston lists six reasons why Scott’s accusations against James 1st consist merely of unsubstantiated rumours and concludes that Scott drew heavily on the book by David H. Wilson, King James VI and I, who in turn based his narrative on the “malicious words” 3 John 10 of James’s adversaries, the disaffected courtiers Anthony Weldon, see above, and Francis Osborne, both of whom hated Scots generally and Scotsman James Stuart in particular. Scott’s book, Coston notes, contains in its bibli- ography many historical works that are supportive of James 1st but which Scott did not use, such that, according to Coston, the National Catholic Reporter, this writer’s emphasis, gave its approval to Scott’s book. The Catholics tried to assassinate James 1st’s person in 1605, a genuine “historical FACT” that Grievous Wolf fails to mention. See Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? Chapter Seven. Four centuries later, they are more than ready to help assassinate his character. Rome is semper eadem, always the same. Coston alludes on pp 178, 322, 323, 350, 351, 352 of his book to misleading statements that David H. Wilson makes about James 1st and the antagonistic portrayal of him that Wilson gives. Coston then cites the Research Guide to European Historical Biography Vol II, pp 1001-1002, 1004, which concludes that Wilson’s verdict on James 1st could well have been influenced by his intense dislike for James and that his work will therefore most likely be superseded. Coston also refers to another 31 work, The Royal House by Eric Linklater, who shows that Weldon, Wilson’s and in turn Osborne’s main source of information (or disinformation), is effectively useless as an authority on James 1st. Stephen Coston reveals the spiteful nature of Weldon and Osborne in Chapter 8 of his book where he shows that, like those of John Hacket, see above, their accusations against James 1st that Grievous Wolf touts as “the historical FACT” were never explicit and never substantiated but sprang from hints, innuendo and insinuation only. The historical accusations against James bear an uncanny similarity to many of Grievous Wolf’s accusations against “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21, the Book forever associated with King James 1st. The accusers appear to have the same mentor, described in Revelation 12:10 as “the accuser of our brethren.” Like him, they too will doubtless be “cast down.” Dr Mrs Riplinger gives a true portrayal of King James 1st in her book King James And His Transla- tors from In Awe of Thy Word pp 581-582, her emphases. “The King’s enemies spun wicked “cunningly devised fables” about him. Harvard University Press’s Jacobean Pagent (1963) calls these, “slanders spread by defeated rivals...” Benjamin Dis- raeli said such authors, “filled their works with Libel and Invective, instead of History...This is the style which passes for history with some readers.” “Historians can and should ignore the venomous caricature of the king’s person and behaviour,” notes Maurice Lee, author of Great Britain’s Solo- mon: James VI. Author Stephen A. Coston cites a personal letter to himself from Roger Magnuson, author and trial lawyer, graduate of Stanford University, Oxford University and Harvard Law School. Magnuson wrote, “I find no evidence” to prove the unkind accusations levelled at King James (Coston, pp 225, 234, 215, 324, 329, 258 n. 1). William Sanderson said, ““The King knew no better means to suppress the credit of false rumors, than by his own pious practice in religion, by outward frequency in the exercises of prayer and preaching, duly performing and executing his justice and mercy, with such wisdom, and piety, as made his virtues thereby more transparent to the common view and sense of all men” (Coston, p. 291). “The KJV translators said of King James, “[H]e knew who had chosen him to be a Soldier, or rather a Captain, and being assured that the course which he intended made for the glory of God, and the building up of his Church, he would not suffer it to be broken off for whatsoever speeches...” (Holy Bible, 1611, The Translators to the Reader, London: Robert Barker).” Jacob Prasch cannot show otherwise. He lied about King James 1st like Grievous Wolf, Garry J. Moes and all the rest. “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” Romans 3:12. Concerning persecution of “evangelical Christians such as Puritan non-conformists” of which Jacob Prasch accuses King James 1st see www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ ‘O Biblios’ – The Book pp 212-213. No format changes have been made. References have been inserted. Our critic further denigrates James for his treatment of the Puritans, Presbyterians and other non- conformists. “Despite his presbyterian upbringing in Scotland he favoured the High Church in Eng- land...When Puritans asked for the removal of superstitious practices in the Church of England which offended their Protestant consciences his well known reply was that he would make them conform or “harry them out of the land.” As a result many godly men suffered at his hands.” However, our critic refers to only one, Thomas Helwys, a Baptist. [Jacob Prasch refers to none] “When in 1612 one of the early Baptists Thomas Helwys, made a plea (as he faced persecution) for liberty of conscience for all, James promptly imprisoned him. He died in prison some time before 1616.” 32 Paine [The Men Behind the KJV Gustavus S. Paine] p 10, also gives the context of James’ “harry- ing” of the Puritans following their request for the removal of “superstitious practices.” He states “So clever was his handling of the meeting that, although he gave the Puritan pleaders no satisfaction and actually threatened to harry them out of the land, he appeared to some observers to lean towards them. Indeed, the dean of the chapel said that on that day the king played the Puritan.” Paine continues “after all the talk ended, it seemed (the Puritans) had won nothing. Indeed there was only one gain: the new Bible.” Of that “one gain”, Paine, p 11, has a much more generous assessment than our critic: “Tyndale’s prayer was now answered in full: James 1 had ordered what Tyndale died to do.” Grady [Final Authority William P. Grady] p 153, makes the following observation “With the “attitude adjustment” of Henry VIII occurring in answer to the martyr’s prayer, “Open the King’s eyes,” we stand in awe at God’s moving of the apostrophe, three-quarters of a century later to, “Open the KINGS’ eyes!”” Of James’ attitude to the Puritans, Dr Ruckman [The History of the New Testament Church Vol. 1 Dr Peter S. Ruckman] p 412, states: “James was supposed to have said that Presbyterianism “agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the Devil.” Subjective bigots (ready to catch at any straw in the wind) [like Jacob Prasch] would take such a statement to mean that James rejected the idea of a New Testament local church; however, the Presbyterianism James spoke of was the Re- formed brand of Calvin’s theocracy at Geneva: it was a MONARCHY within itself and just as deadly to a nation as the popacracy at Rome.” Of Thomas Helwys, Ralston states: “The Puritans and Baptists, both sincere and holy people, resisted the attempt to be brought under the authority of the Bishop. The ageing James had given religious freedom but now, without his approval, the Puritans suffered persecution by the official church. In 1612, James imprisoned Thomas Helwys, a Baptist preacher. Helwys had preached that the King and the Church of England had no right to dictate religious beliefs for English subjects.” In no way does Ralston condone James’ treatment of Helwys. However, his description of Helwys’ preaching appears closer to the truth than our critic’s evaluation of it as “a plea for liberty of conscience for all.” William Estep, in The Anabaptist Story pp 223-224 refers to Helwys’ “vigorous plea for complete religious liberty” and cites some of its salient passages: “Heare, o king, and dispise not ye counsell of ye poore, and let their complaints come before thee. The king is a mortall man, and not God therefore hath no power over ye immortall soules of his subjects, to make lawes and ordinances for them, and to set spirituall Lords over them... “That Christ alone is King of Israell, & sitts upon Davids Throne, & that the King ought to be a subject of his Kingdome.” Estep states that Helwys identified the Church of England with the second beast of Revelation 13. Given the ‘ministry’ of this second beast, Revelation 13:13-15 and his ultimate end, Revelation 19:20, I cannot believe that Helwys’ interpretation was correct. However, it no doubt antagonised the Anglican hierarchy and probably James himself, who was the official head of the Church of Eng- land. Moreover, the contents of Helwys’ statement, quoted above, read more like a demand than a plea and Estep also describes it as an admonition, p 223. Thomas Helwys was a brave and godly man who championed a cause with scriptural foundation. James’ reaction to him was despotic. However, in the light of the above and of Solomon’s warnings, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it” Proverbs 16:14 and “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Ecclesiastes 8:4, brave, godly Thomas Helwys may have overreached himself. 33 Ralston is frank about James’ failures in his later years but again, gives the context. James died in 1625, aged 66. “Due to disease and stroke, he had gradually ceased to rule long before he had ceased to reign...James had developed symptoms of early senility and whose symptoms were growing worse. It may have been this undiagnosed disease which accounts for his peculiar and unorthodox behaviour in later years. Again, it could have been the results of a backslidden and carnal life of a Christian who lapsed into sin.” That can happen even to a godly monarch who had genuinely trusted God to defend his nation against heathen invaders and in return God wrought a great deliverance. Jacob Prasch missed the following examples. “And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive...” 2 Samuel 8:2. “Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon” 2 Samuel 12:9. “And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon...” 1 Chronicles 20:3. “And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee. So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled” 2 Chronicles 14:11-12. “Then Asa was wroth with the seer, and put him in a prison house; for he was in a rage with him because of this thing. And Asa oppressed some of the people the same time...And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians” 2 Chronicles 16:10, 12. If Jacob Prasch is so concerned about King James 1st having supposedly “persecuted evangelical Christians such as Puritan non-conformists,” he should condemn King David in like manner and cease reading the Book of Psalms. Persecution is persecution, whether the victims are “evangelical Christians such as Puritan non-conformists” or ungodly heathen. The perpetrator is just as much to blame for wrongdoing and “Uriah the Hittite” was not of course one of the ungodly heathen. In Asa’s case the victims included his own subjects and “a prophet of the LORD” 1 Samuel 3:20, 1 Kings 18:22, 22:7, 2 Kings 3:11, 2 Chronicles 18:6, 28:9. Note that Kings Asa and David did perse- cute others whereas Jacob Prasch cannot show that King James 1st persecuted anyone. See also Dr Gipp’s detailed study Was King James a Homosexual? samgipp.com/was-king-james-a- homosexual/ Question 3. Answer: No. Dr Gipp unequivocally shows why in accordance with King Solomon’s observation although neither Jacob Prasch nor any of King James 1st’s accusers have shown any of the following attributes. “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD” Proverbs 21:30. Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Para 4, Point 2 Jacob Prasch insists with respect to Amos 4:4 “I have just read the Masoretic (text is assumed) (not the LXX) and the Hebrew term is “yamim” not shanim. The KJV is wrong and so are you. Ms (sic) Riplinger does not know Greek, and you, obviously, do not know Hebrew. Moreover, contrary to the groundless objections of the Ruckmanites, the New Testament repeatedly quotes from the LXX and the TBS themselves lend to credence to Riplinger and want no associations with her folly.” That was Jacob Prasch’s petulant reaction to this statement from the letter of August 29th 2001. 34 (In passing, your alteration of “year” in Amos 4:4, AV1611, to “day” para 5, p 15, is an LXX corruption. The King James translators gave the correct idiomatic rendering of “three years of days”. See Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:12.) This writer answered Jacob Prasch’s Para 4, Point 2 in the letter of January 28th 2002 as follows. Young’s Concordance shows that yanim [yamim] is rendered “year” or “yearly” more than a dozen times in an AV1611 and the context of these expressions shows overwhelmingly that the AV1611 is correct. Given that the AV1611 translators included men like Dr. Miles Smith, who “had Hebrew at his fingers’ ends”, Which Bible?, p 18, this is not surprising. The TBS leaflet on the LXX, no. 30, gives no evidence for the existence of a pre-Christian LXX and there are no LXX manuscripts that pre-date the 3rd century AD. Brenton’s LXX cites the 4th century AD Codices Alexandrinus, Vati- canus and Sinaiticus as the basis for its text. See Which Bible is God’s Word? p 76 [2007 Edition pp 108-110] and The Mythological Septuagint by Dr. Ruckman for details. Brenton’s LXX has the term τριημερίαν in Amos 4:4 i.e. “third day.” The compilers of the LXX e.g. Origen could not understand the Hebrew context any better than Jacob Prasch. See GAIL RIPLINGER ANSWERS HER CRITICS that shows that Jacob Prasch lied again about Sister Riplinger not knowing Greek. It is of course true that this writer does not know Hebrew, requiring “words easy to be understood” 1 Corinthians 14:9 so that he “might...know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee” Proverbs 22:21. Jacob Prasch of course cannot cite any verse of scripture in either Testament to show that a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is necessary in order “To know wisdom and instruc- tion; to perceive the words of understanding” Proverbs 1:2. He is simply following his satanic mindset of “I will be like the most High” Isaiah 14:14 by adopting the attitude of a 33rd Degree Royal Arch mason, which insists that only those inducted into ‘the mysteries’ of the ancient scripts are qualified to receive ‘enlightenment.’ That is extremely ironic considering Jacob Prasch’s diatribe against King James 1st about Freemasonry. Jacob Prasch does not of course specify which “Masoretic (text is assumed)” that he is reading from. Regardless of Jacob Prasch’s spat venom, see opening graphic, against Sister Riplinger, she has shown that no extant Masoretic Text edition is authoritative with respect to the actual Hebrew Old Testament. See Hazardous Materials Chapter 28 Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament Non- Authoritative Texts. She states, p 1006, her emphases: Summary: Current Non-Authoritative Texts All currently printed, facsimile, software, and online editions of the Hebrew Massoretic Text fail to reflect the pure historic Massoretic Text in toto (e.g. Numbers 33:8, 2 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam. 16:23, Ruth 3:5, Ruth 3:17, Judges 20:13 et. al..) These include, but are not limited to the following: • The Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green... [Green’s Interlinear agrees with Jacob Prasch in Amos 4:4. The LXX has “every third day.” Note that of the pre-1611 Bibles, Wycliffe has “thre daies,” Coverdale, Great, Matthew have “the thirde daye.” The Bishops’, Geneva corrected this shortcoming of the earlier pre-1611 Bibles with “after three yeres” in agreement with the AV1611 “after three years.” The Challoner’s 1749-1752 Revision of the Catholic Douay-Rheims version regressed to the error of “three days.” Jacob Prasch ironically endorses the Geneva Bible on p 13 of his article with reference to “the Reformed Christians of the time when the KJV was authorised, such as the Puritan Fathers, were brutally persecuted by King James I and rejected the KJV in favour of the Geneva Bible.” Jacob Prasch should have consulted the Geneva Bible about Amos 4:4 as well as “the Masoretic (text is assumed)”] • The British and Foreign Bible Society, The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, Hebrew and English... • The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), Holy Bible, The Holy Scriptures in the Original Lan- guages... 35 • All software, online editions and facsimile editions which use the term “Hebrew Old Testament” or “Massoretic Text” (sometimes called ‘Masoretic’). • All commentaries, lexicons, Bible notes, and study Bibles which reference “the Hebrew.” It is up to Jacob Prasch to specify “the Masoretic (text is assumed)” and to explain why it is finally authoritative. This may prove extremely difficult because he did say in his 2004 article attacking the 1611 Holy Bible: Of all the books on the subject, I would recommend most “The English Bible From KJV to NIV” by Jack P. Lewis, published by Baker Book House, 1991. This book points out many errors in other leading translations of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures making it very plain that there is no such thing as an “inerrant” translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch p 1. Why therefore should anyone trust any translation that Jacob Prasch makes from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that Gail Riplinger has shown are themselves defective? Jacob Prasch with “the Masoretic (text is assumed)” and his subsequent comments on various scriptures is like those of whom Job said “They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man” Job 12:25. Jacob Prasch like “...the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him” Judges 11:28, see Introduction, ignored all of the above material from the letters of August 29th 2001 and January 28th 2002. However, the following scriptures show that the AV1611 reading “years” in Amos 4:4 is right and the substitution of “days” is wrong. Dr Ruckman in The Book of Minor Prophets Vol. 1 Hosea- Nahum p 265 identified the reading “days” as an LXX corruption and listed Deuteronomy 14:28, 26:12 against it. One of Dr Ruckman’s lecturers at Bob Jones University was a Dr Brokenshire who could read and write 8 different languages including Hebrew and had earned graduate degrees from continental European universities. Just before he died, Dr Brokenshire had stated in writing that Dr Ruckman was capable of teaching Hebrew and bequeathed his Kittel’s Hebrew Bible to Dr Ruck- man. See The Full Cup by Dr Ruckman pp 170, 197-198. Where does that leave Jacob Prasch? Daniel answered that question long ago. “TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting” Daniel 5:27. Amos 4:4 states “Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years.” The scriptures that show that the AV1611 reading “years” in Amos 4:4 is right and the substitution of “days” is wrong are as follows. “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates” Deuteronomy 14:28. “When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled” Deuteronomy 26:12. The following scriptures are those in addition to Amos 4:4 where the 1611 Holy Bible correctly renders yamim as “year,” “years,” “year’s,” or “yearly.” “Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year” Exodus 13:10. “And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year may he redeem it” Leviticus 25:29. Jacob Prasch thinks that the seller had to be much more decisive. 36 “Or whether it were two days, or a month, or a year, that the cloud tarried upon the tabernacle, remaining thereon, the children of Israel abode in their tents, and journeyed not: but when it was taken up, they journeyed” Numbers 9:22. “Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed” Joshua 13:1. “That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year” Judges 11:40. “And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in” Judges 17:10. Jacob Prasch would have ensured that the Levite was far too well-heeled to have sloped off with the Danites, Judges 18:20, 24, until Micah was bankrupted, of course. “Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah” Judges 21:19. “And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh...” 1 Samuel 1:3. “And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow” 1 Samuel 1:21. “Moreover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice” 1 Samuel 2:19. Jacob Prasch thinks that Hannah spun and sewed 24/7 and Samuel grew and developed a lot faster. “If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family” 1 Samuel 20:6. “And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year and four months” 1 Samuel 27:7. “And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year’s end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight” 2 Samuel 14:26. Jacob Prasch thinks that Absalom must have had access to unusually potent hair growth hormones. “Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat” 1 Kings 1:1. That is 15 verses including Amos 4:4 with a total of 18 readings that show that the 1611 Holy Bible is right and Jacob Prasch is wrong. Nevertheless he continues on like “A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman...” Proverbs 27:15. Jacob insists further in Para 4 that “...contrary to the groundless objections of the Ruckmanites, the New Testament repeatedly quotes from the LXX and the TBS themselves (sic) lend no credence to Riplinger and her folly.” It is noteworthy that Jacob Prasch has not specified even one New Testament LXX quotation or any B.C. LXX manuscript in which the quotation may be found or any reference where that information may be found. Yet again Jacob Prasch has maligned Sister Riplinger who has good cause not to give any credence to the TBS apart from the society’s distribution of the 1611 Holy Bible exclusively and its mostly helpful articles. Concerning the TBS’s attitude to Sister Riplinger that Jacob Prasch endorses see Sister Riplinger’s work King James Version ditches Blind Guides p 61 and this extract. 37

The same applies to Jacob Prasch who has ignored the Lord’s admonition through Moses. “Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” Exodus 23:1. The facts concerning the LXX Septuagint of which Jacob Prasch appears to be unaware are as follows. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ ‘O Biblios’ – The Book p 5. No format changes have been made. References have been inserted.

38 1.2.5. Old Testament Sources [Which Bible? 5th Edition David Otis Fuller, D.D.] p 181 The following should be noted: 1. The Old Testament was in a “settled condition” by the time of Christ. 2. Hebrew scriptures were preserved intact by Masoretic Scribes until the advent of printing, 1450 AD [standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf Chapter 4, The King James Version Defended 3rd Edition Edward F. Hills Th.D.] p 92. 3. Many scholars insist that an allegedly BC Greek translation of the Old Testament, the LXX or Septuagint, was used by the Lord and His Apostles. The facts [The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence Dr Peter S. Ruckman] pp 41-54 are: 4. The only evidence for a BC LXX is the spurious writing “Letter of Aristeas.” 5. All LXX manuscripts are extant from 200 AD or later. 6. The original LXX is the 5th column of Origen’s 6 column parallel Old Testament ‘Hexapala’ and contains the Apocrypha. 7. Brenton’s LXX Edition, Zondervan, uses the texts of Codex B Vaticanus, 4th century AD and Codex A Alexandrinus, 5th century and declares the Apocrypha to be “a portion of the Bible of Christendom”. The LXX is highly regarded by Greek scholars. If they can convince the Body of Christ that the LXX was the Lord’s ‘bible’, they could easily and significantly extend their influence over that body [The Answer Book Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., Samuel C. Gipp, samgipp.com/what-is-the-septuagint/ What is the LXX? Question 9. Answer: A figment of someone’s imagination] p 48. The book The Mythological Septuagint by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, 1996, available from the Bible Baptist Bookstore, provides a detailed study of the dubious nature of the LXX. Sister Riplinger inserts this incisive note from Which Bible is God’s Word? 2007 Edition pp 108-110 in www.avpublications.com/avnew/resources.html Why didn’t Jesus use the Septuagint?. Jacob Prasch will have no coherent answer, his spat venom notwithstanding. “And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake” Acts 6:10. 39

Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Para 5, Point 3 Jacob Prasch insists that “Your comparison of Paul’s citation of the Greek poet to a cross-reference of a biblical text is ludicrous. It is a false comparison. Paul’s citation is included in the text, the KJV cross-reference from the Apocrypha is not in the text, but listed as a scriptural reference. In- cluding the Apocrypha is one thing, giving it the credence of a biblical reference is quite another.” That was Jacob Prasch’s evasive and belligerently thick reaction to this statement from this writer’s letter of August 29th 2001 in response to Jacob Prasch’s anti-Biblical article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas. Its wickedness against Sister Riplinger notwithstanding, see above, the TBS did provide this writer with useful information about the Apocrypha. Para 10 p 12 states “the 1611 KJV not only contains the Apocryphal books, but like the Roman Cath- olic bibles cites them as scripture…Genesis 3:6 with the Apocryphal Ecclesiasticus 25:26”. Once again you mislead your readers. The 1611 Holy Bible contains the Apocrypha between the Testa- ments, unlike the Catholic bibles, which have it as part of the Old Testament. The title page of the 1611 AV1611 refers to “The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament and the New”, not to the Apocrypha. The Trinitarian Bible Society informed me privately that the Church of England in the 16th and 17th centuries required that the Apocrypha be included “in all printed Bibles, i.e. including the Geneva Bible” (to which you allude favourably on p 13, para 11) TBS emphasis. Further, a marginal reference does not confer the status of scripture on that reference, unless it is clearly from one of the Testaments, anymore than a scriptural reference to heathen poetry makes the poet an apostle, Acts 17:28. The Geneva Bible, against which you have no complaint, contains many marginal notes but these are not scripture. Finally, Dr. Grady’s book Final Authority, which you appear to have read, p 1 para 4, states that the King James translators gave 7 reasons why the Apocrypha is not scripture. Dr. Sam Gipp lists these reasons in The Answer Book, p 99-100. [See below] This writer answered Jacob Prasch’s Para 5, Point 3 in the letter of January 28th 2002 as follows. The “comparison of Paul’s citation of a Greek poet to a cross-reference of a biblical text” is entirely valid. From the huge volume of heathen poetry, one statement emerged that agreed with scripture, to which Paul drew attention but that does not make heathen poetry ‘scripture’. Neither does an apoc- 42 ryphal statement that agrees with scripture give it the status of ‘scripture’ – any more than devotional books that agree with scripture could themselves be considered ‘scripture’. It may be noted further that as indicated above, the 1611 AV1611 contained the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. Most AV1611s now do not contain the Apocrypha at all and in 1611 as indicated above, the legal requirement for all published Bibles notwithstanding, it was not perceived to be part of “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15 as the inserted graphic confirms. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KJV-King- James-Version-Bible-first-edition-title- page-1611.xcf. Therefore if an Apocryphal reference is to be elevated to the status of scripture, the King James translators would have to have stated this unequivocally in the preface to the 1611 Holy Bible The Translators to the Reader. They never did so, not even in the paragraph in the preface that addresses marginal readings entitled Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each. See: www.bible- researcher.com/kjvpref.html. Though it contains a comprehensive reproduction of the Preface to the 1611 Holy Bible, the site does not contain the Dedicatory Epistle and is not wholly trustworthy because it purports to have found defects in the 1611 Holy Bi- ble and cites for supposed proof authors who are known for their anti-Biblical stance e.g. Joseph Henry Thayer. See Hazardous Materials by Gail Riplinger Chapter 9 “Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon” reflects his Unitarianism..., her emphases. The Dedicatory Epistle may be found here www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm. This site regrettably does not include the paragraph titles to the AV1611 Preface. The above information has been given because the site www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm that this writer has used repeatedly was temporarily unavailable. It is now available. It may be noted further that prominent extant AV1611 Editions do not contain Ecclesiasticus 25:26 as a cross reference to Genesis 3:6 or any other Apocryphal references. These include the Cam- bridge Cameo Edition, the Cambridge Concord Edition and the TBS Westminster Reference Bible. Jacob Prasch’s objections to the AV1611 with respect to the Apocrypha and Apocryphal marginal references therefore no longer apply. The Cambridge Cameo and Concord Editions each gives 1 Timothy 2:14 only as a cross reference to Genesis 3:6. The 1611 AV1611 gives 1 Timothy 2:14 as the only other marginal reference to Genesis 3:6. 43 However, the TBS Westminster Reference Bible gives in addition to 1 Timothy 2:14, Genesis 3:17, Joshua 7:21, Judges 16:1, 2, 1 John 2:16. Those additional cross references lead to a peculiar situation according to Jacob Prasch’s twisted mentality. Jacob Prasch said “the KJV cross-reference from the Apocrypha is not in the text, but listed as a scriptural reference.” According to Jacob Prasch’s twisted mentality, therefore, Bible believers may cease from perceiving Ecclesiasticus 25:26 as scripture but may only perceive Genesis 3:17, Joshua 7:21, Judges 16:1, 2, 1 John 2:16 as scripture since the TBS Westminster Bible inserted them as cross references to Genesis 3:6. Thankfully, Jacob Prasch’s twisted mentality and indeed all his spat venom against the 1611 Holy Bible are as Job said. “They are as stubble before the wind, and as chaff that the storm carrieth away” Job 21:18. It should be noted that God’s use of heathen Greek writers is limited to a mere 15 words in the New Testament, cited by the Apostle Paul. “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring” Acts 17:28. “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” Titus 1:12. New Testament citations from the Old Testament, both direct and indirect, are, however, extremely numerous, far too numerous for this writer to list, as this site shows. It has to divide the citations into Parts I-V. See www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes.cfm Blue Letter Bible, Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament and this introductory extract. The list contains not only the direct or indirect citations, but also the allusions which are particularly worthy of attention: and the passages are given in the order of the Books of the New Testament. (The list has been divided up into five parts to decrease the download time.) Download time for the Apocrypha is zero. A mere 15 words from the whole mass of heathen literature were rated as upgradable into scripture. The Apocrypha rated none. The King James translators knew and believed that and so do Bible believers, Jacob Prasch’s twisted mentality notwithstanding. For Dr Gipp’s summary overview of the Apocrypha see The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp samgipp.com/34-didnt-the-first-king-james-bible-contain-the-apocrypha/ Question 34 and this extract, his emphases.

44 Didn’t the first King James Bible contain the Apocrypha? QUESTION #34: Didn’t the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture. First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexan- drian manuscripts. That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows: 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. 2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration [After the manner of King David who exem- plifies all Biblical writers. “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” 2 Samuel 23:2]. 3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. 4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. 5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scrip- tures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. 6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfec- tion. 7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn’t have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. The totally worthless Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are what Jacob Prasch calls the best Greek texts we have available to us. See Jacob Prasch’s comment as follows from the extracts cited earlier from www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch pp 10, 22, 127, 136. A little patience and a little study will reward the diligent student with answers to all of those passages cited by KJV Only advocates regarding alleged doctrinal “corruption.” In each case the reputa- ble modern translations will be cleared of the charge...Many other examples could be examined that confirm that modern translations such as the NASB and NIV, far from being corrupt, are in fact the best examples of faithful English translations of the best Greek texts we have available to us. 45 This Bible believer’s reaction to Jacob Prasch’s twisted mentality therefore and indeed all his comments encountered so far is as Paul expressed it to “Elymas the sorcerer” Acts 13:8. “...O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” Acts 13:10. Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Paras 6, 7, Points 4a, 4b Jacob Prasch’s Point 4 is actually two points, the first, designated Point 4a here, about the Holy Spir- it, the second, designated Point 4b, about Herod. Jacob Prasch goes all out with spat venom in his Point 4a. He rails “Your attempted justification of calling the Holy Spirit an “it” by the KJV, is preposterous.” At this point Jacob’s Prasch’s ire got the better of him and he diverged abruptly onto the subject of Herod i.e. Point 4b, which is addressed below. He picks up again on the subject of the Holy Spirit in the next paragraph as follows. “To suggest that the Holy Spirit can be called an “it” by drawing a distinction between His personhood and his (sic) ministry/office, is nonsense. Jesus called Him a person. If your warped argument were even remotely true (which it certainly is not), then the same distinction could be drawn between Jesus’ personhood and his (sic) ministry/office as Messiah, and Jesus could be referred to as an “it” (just as New Agers, with their view of the cosmic Christ, already relegate Him to that demeaned status.)” Jacob Prasch’s two comments above were his kneejerk reaction to this statement from this writer’s letter of August 29th 2001 in response to Jacob Prasch’s anti-Biblical article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas. Para 7 p 12 states “After the [NWT] the Jehovah’s Witnesses prefer the KJV because…the KJV reduces the Holy Spirit from a person to an ‘it’ (the KJV translators…failed to grasp that gender in Greek does [not] mean what gender does in English)”. No, you failed to grasp that scripture draws a distinction between the Person of the Holy Spirit and His office, or ministry. Compare John 16:13 and Romans 8:16. John 16:13 states “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” The Lord is here revealing “the Spirit of truth” as a Person and then describing His future ministry with believers. Note further remarks on John 16:13 below in response to Bible critic Robert A. Joyner. Romans 8:16 states “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Paul is here describing the ministry of “the Spirit of truth” as it is carried out the believer now. This writer answered Jacob Prasch’s Paras 6, 7, Point 4a in the letter of January 28th 2002 as follows. The Holy Spirit is rightly referred to as ‘it’ - or more precisely “itself”, as in Romans 8:16, 17, 26 – with respect to His ministry, because, John 16:8-11 notwithstanding, the Lord Jesus Christ compared the essence of the Spirit’s ministry to a neuter force. This is why the word pneuma is neuter. He stated in John 3:8, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit”. By contrast, the angel of the Lord specifically designated Jesus’ ministry as that of a personal Saviour to Israel, Matthew 1:21. See also Romans 15:8. No honest reader of the AV1611 could therefore possibly get confused over the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and His ministry. Jacob Prasch naturally failed to compare John 16:13, Romans 8:16 and their respective contexts, pre- ferring to remain wilfully ignorant of “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21. 46 See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Robert A. Joyner p 7. No format changes have been made. All remarks that follow with respect to Robert A. Joyner apply equally to Jacob Prasch. 2. The KJV calls the Holy Spirit an “it” in Romans 8:16, 26. The NASB corrects this error and says the “Spirit Himself.” The context of the whole Bible shows the Holy Spirit is not an “it.” Can you, dear reader, feel comfortable calling the third person of the Trinity an “it”? Robert A. Joyner is not qualified to speak of The context of the whole Bible. Robert A. Joyner cannot identify the whole Bible as “all scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16 as a single extant document between two covers. Robert A. Joyner should ask himself how comfortable he is with directly contradicting “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” 1 Timothy 6:3. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” John 16:13-14. Romans 8:17 refers to “joint-heirs with Christ.” Romans 8:27 states “And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God” matching “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” Hebrews 7:25. Like Romans 8:17, Ro- mans 8:27 both refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, Whom “the Spirit of truth” glorifies and therefore is referred to as “it” in Romans 8:16, 26 because as the Lord Jesus Christ, Whom Robert A. Joyner has directly contradicted, said of “the Spirit of truth...he shall not speak of himself.” Note that Robert A. Joyner missed Peter’s statement that is a further fulfilment of John 16:13 with respect to “the Spirit of truth” glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ. Robert A. Joyner is being prompted by some other spirit, 1 Kings 22:22, 2 Chronicles 18:21. “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” 1 Peter 1:11. For further remarks on “the Spirit itself” Romans 8:16, 26 see www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ ‘O Biblios’ – The Book pp 242-243. No format changes have been made. Readings have been inserted in braces. Inspection of those readings shows that Jacob Prasch would have a hard time as- signing gender to “the manifestation of the Spirit” 1 Corinthians 12:7 described therein even though gender is assigned to “the Spirit” with respect to the oversight of His ministry of bestowing spiritual gifts upon “the body of Christ, and members in particular” 1 Corinthians 12:27. “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” 1 Corinthians 12:11.

47 Our critic then objects to “the Spirit itself” AV1611, in Romans 8:16, 26, claiming the reading should be “himself,” DR, RV, NIV, JB, NJB (Romans 8:16, the NJB has “the Spirit personally” in Romans 8:26). The NWT and Berry’s TR have “itself,” Ne has both readings. There are some manifestations of the Spirit of God, Ezekiel 1:20, 21, Revelation 4:5, where application of gender to “Spirit” would not be appropriate. The modern alteration obscures this revelation. [“Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God” Ezekiel 1:1] [“Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels” Ezekiel 1:20-21] [“And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God” Revelation 4:5] Dr Gipp [The Answer Book Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.] pp 97-98, replies to our critic’s charge as follows: “The word translated “itself” in Romans 8:26 is “pneuma” which means “spirit”...“pneuma” is a NEUTER, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language students. Thus, the King James Bible CORRECTLY translates pneuma “itself” because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it “himself” as many of today’s inferior translations do. Since critics of the King James Bible like to deride it for pretended “mistranslations” of the Greek, it seems hypocritical indeed to criticise it here for properly translating the Greek. Then to add insult to ignorance they laud other versions such as...the NIV which INCORRECTLY render pneuma as “himself.” “Secondly, in adding to their hypocrisy and exposing their disdain for God’s Bible, these same critics...will promote translations such as the NIV which call God a “What” in Acts 17:23. The Author- ised Version correctly renders it “Whom.” “Thirdly...is a statement that Jesus Christ makes in John chapter 4 while dealing with the woman at the well... ““Ye worship ye know not what: we know WHAT we worship...” “To whom is Jesus referring by the word “what”? The next verse defines His statement perfectly. “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship THE FATHER in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” “Thus we see that Jesus finds referring to His own Father as “what” in verse 22 a NON-ISSUE.” See also samgipp.com/33-isnt-the-holy-spirit-incorrectly-called-it-in-romans-826-in-the-kjv/ Ques- tion 33. The scripture itself explains why Romans 8:16, 26 contain the expression “the Spirit itself.” (“The Spirit himself” occurs nowhere in scripture.) “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” John 16:13-14. “The Spirit of truth” is glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ throughout Romans 8. See in particular Romans 8:17, 29, 34-39. Therefore “he shall not speak of himself.” Simple, really 48 However, anyone intent on glorifying himself against “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21 would miss it. Note Dr Ruckman’s incisive evaluation, that applies directly to Jacob Prasch. “(Missed it, didn’t you, you God-forsaken Fundamental Greek scholars and Conservative Hebrew scholars and Evangelical textual critics - all of you orthodox Bible teachers. Missed it by a mile, didn’t you? Do you know why you did? Because God won’t bless a LIAR.)” – Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship p 355. Note that though the Lord Jesus Christ revealed the Spirit of God to be a Person, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:7-14, that revelation came earlier in God’s timing via “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21, not even from John the Baptist, who bore witness of the Lord, John 1:15 and of “the Spirit” John 1:32 but of “the Spirit” as a manifestation “like a dove” not as a Person. Note the careful wording of the following scriptures. “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound” Isaiah 61:1. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised” Luke 4:18. Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18 together further reveal that “The Spirit of the LORD” is Himself God, Acts 5:3, 4 and “the LORD” is “he,” that is “The Spirit of the Lord.” Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18 are therefore an example of progressive revelation from two different texts both “given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16! “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Romans 11:34. That the first revelation of “The Spirit of the Lord” as a Person should come via the scripture and only then by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself afterwards is in keeping with the Lord’s elevation of “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21. “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” Psalm 138:2. Jacob Prasch’s Point 4b reads as follows. “If you were to read what Josephus wrote about Herod in Antiquities, his religious view (sic) were purely a matter of political expediency (sounds like the consummate heathen). He would build a temple to Apollo and dedicate athletic games to Caesar, while at the same time renovate the Hebrew temple. Your conjecture concerning him is speculative and devoid of any real proof. But even if it were not, your further argument is hideous.” That was Jacob Prasch’s evasive reaction to this statement from this writer’s letter of August 29th 2001 in response to Jacob Prasch’s anti-Biblical article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas. Para 11 p 12, para 1 p 13 states that “so influenced by Roman Catholicism is the KJV that it calls the Resurrection Day ‘Easter’”. You fail to give the reference, Acts 12:4, which is referring to the in- tentions of the heathen king, Herod, which would have been centred on the pagan holiday of Easter, not the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. See The Answer Book, p 3ff. Jacob Prasch’s Para 6, Point 4b was not addressed explicitly in the letter of January 28th 2002 but attention should be drawn to Jacob Prasch’s blatant lie that “the KJV...calls the Resurrection Day ‘Easter’”. It does nothing of the kind as the following material shows, including further disclosures about Herod that reinforce the “real proof” about him that Jacob Prasch denies. Jacob Prasch did not read the context of Acts 12:4 which follows that reveals Herod’s heathen mindset. It is Jacob 49 Prasch’s cowardly temper-tantrum denial of that revelation that is “hideous.” Herod’s hands were “hands that shed innocent blood” Proverbs 6:17 and the Lord abominated both them and their own- er, Proverbs 6:16. “Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people” Acts 12:1-4. Herod was simply one of a long and sinister line of the heathen that under the umbrella of Rome, as Herod was, major in murdering the Lord’s saints to this day and will continue to do so until the Sec- ond Advent as H. Grattan Guinness vividly described and as the scripture confirms. Born in Dublin, Dr Grattan Guinness (1835-1910) was a great evangelist, author and Bible teacher, who spoke for the genuine believers of his time. The Dublin Daily Express said this of a service he held in 1858, aged 23. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Grattan_Guinness: “An enormous crowd pressed for admittance. Judges, members of Parliament, orators, Fellows of College, lights of the various professions, the rank and fashion of the metropolis have been drawn out. Among them the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Justice of Appeal, etc. Such a preacher is a great power, prepared and sent forth by God, and as such Mr. Guinness has been hailed by all denominations.” Dr Grattan Guinness had this to say about Rome. See: whitehorsemedia.com/docs/ROMANISM_AND_THE_REFORMATION.pdf pp 68-69 www.mtc.org/inquis.html THE INQUISITION: A Study in Absolute Catholic Power, Arthur Maricle, Ph.D. “I see the great Apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters; I see those vice-gods, that Gregory VII, that Innocent III, that Boniface Vlll, that Alexander Vl, that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I hear their insufferable blasphemies, I see their abominable lives; I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions, bartering away worthless promises of heaven; I see their liveried slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St. Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable dragonnades, that endless train of wars, that dreadful multitude of massacres. I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has brought in the Church and in the world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered, the millions it has damned; with holy confessors, with noble reformers, with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan, as the body and soul and essence of antichrist.” Amen. “...what saith the scripture?” Romans 4:3. “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration” Revelation 17:5-6. Thankfully “strong is the Lord God who judgeth her” Revelation 18:8. “And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged 50 the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever” Revelation 19:1-3. Noting again the title of Jacob Prasch’s article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumeni- cal, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas and that he accuses the 1611 Holy Bible of being “above all Roman Catholic and Ecumenical...ecumenical...ecumenical” Para 2, p 14, Paras 2, 5, p 15, it should be understood that Catholicism created the Nazi movement that was disproportionately sodomite and has long harboured a virulent hatred for the 1611 Holy Bible. Jacob Prasch’s hatred for the 1611 Holy Bible almost matches it. See www.chick.com/ Mama’s Girls, The Godfathers, The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris and www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3141085/posts The Pink Swastika by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. See also Answers to the Wolf-Man Part 1 pp 53-57 above.

See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ ‘O Biblios’ – The Book p 246 and this extract. No format changes have been made. What Rome really thinks of the 1611 Holy Bible is found from the two impeccable sources following. The first is from The Secret Plan, compiled in the Jesuit College near Turin in Northern Italy in 1825. The plan was written up by Fr Leone, SJ, translated and published in 1848 by Augusta Cooke. This is what the Jesuits had to say about the Author- ized King James Bible of 1611. “Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it [1881, Revised Version, Westcott and Hort, Cambridge University; 1881, see Section 6.1, ‘Originals- onlyism,’ Hodge and Warfield, Princeton Theological Seminary, see Section 12.6, “Traitors, heady, highminded” 2 Timothy 3:4]...for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us.” American Baptist Eric Jon Phelps is a long-term researcher of Vatican strategy. His comment on the above Jesuit statement is that “As The Authorized Version is the bulwark for the very Reformation the [Jesuit] Order is oath- bound to destroy it. See Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? by David W. Daniels, Chick Publications, 2005, p 111 and Vatican Assassins by Eric Jon Phelps, CD, Chapter 21, p 485. 51 Section 6.1 of ‘O Biblios’ – The Book p 30 states by way of introduction: The Devil was not slow to oppose the great blessings of revival, soul-winning and enterprise brought about by the God-honoured AV1611 Holy Bible. Through the agency of his own papal church, Sa- tan concentrated his attack on the nation which had produced the Book. His attack culminated in the efforts of Westcott and Hort, two Cambridge academics, to displace the AV1611 as the English Bi- ble by means of their own Revised Version, RV, based mainly on the text of the Alexandrian manuscripts, which in turn formed the basis of Roman Catholic bibles such as the Latin Vulgate and the Jesuit Douay-Rheims... Section 12.6 of ‘O Biblios’ – The Book pp 223-224 states: Note the following remarks with respect to Warfield and his fellow Princeton academic Archibald Hodge, from Dr D. A. Waite and The DBS, Dead Bible Society pp 22-23, aka D. A. Waite the Bi- ble Corrector www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php. Dr Waite’s stance on the imaginary ‘Original Bible’ is in fact merely a variation on the position taken by Princeton academics Hodge and Warfield, who backed away from belief in an inerrant Bible, except in the ‘originals,’ as explained by the Presbyterian Church in the USA. Under-linings, emphases and comment in braces are this author’s. [www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/_resolutions/scripture-use.pdf p 26]. “The son and successor of Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, shifted away from his father’s insistence on the inerrancy of the traditional text in use to the inerrancy of the (lost) original autographs. A. A. Hodge with B. B. Warfield co-authored the definitive statement in the Princeton doctrine of Scrip- ture, summarized in an 1881 article on “Inspiration.”” ““Nevertheless the historical faith of the Church has always been that all the affirmations of Scrip- ture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psycho- logical or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba [very same words] of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural sense.”” That is, only the ‘original’ words of scripture are without error. The article in The Presbyterian Review, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1881 may be found online [The Presbyterian Review, 1881, Vol. 2, No. 6, commons.ptsem.edu/id/presbyterianrevi2618unse-dmd002 See also www.bible-researcher.com/warfield4.html pp 237-238, 245]. The citation from the article is from p 238. The following citation from that article, p 245 is also significant. Under-linings are this author’s. “We do not assert that the common text [i.e. the AV1611], but only that the original autographic text was inspired.” What Hodge and Warfield claimed is that only the ‘original text’ is God’s inspired, inerrant words and only the ‘scholars’ (like Hodge and Warfield) can tell the Bible reader what God really said. Dr Waite’s position is therefore essentially the same as Hodge and Warfield’s. By means of his expertise in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the Bible reader ‘for today’ can now have access to what God really said. Via Dr Waite’s expertise, the Bible reader therefore ends up in exactly the same place as Hodge and Warfield left him back in 1881, the year of infamy, in which Westcott and Hort published their RV New Testament, 1+8+8+1 = 18, or 6+6+6, 666, Revelation 13:18 (!). In this place of infamy, the Bible reader purportedly needs a ‘scholar’ (like Dr Waite or Hodge and Warfield) “which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High” Numbers 24:16, in order to receive those words and acquire that knowledge. 52 This lamentable state of affairs is entirely contrary to Dr Miles Smith’s exhortation to the Bible reader [The Translators to the Reader www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm]. Under-linings are this author’s. “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” Like this author, who has no expertise in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek but is, “by the grace of God” 1 Corinthians 15:10, able to read AV1611 English and will remain eternally grateful to Dr Smith and his colleagues...in affirming of their Translation that “this is the word of God, which we translate.” The truth about the 1611 Holy Bible is therefore the direct opposite of Jacob Prasch’s article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas in which he accuses the 1611 Holy Bible of being “above all Roman Catholic and Ecumenical...” as Isaiah noted long ago. King David described the inevitable consequences. “Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay...” Isaiah 29:16 and at the Second Advent if not before “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Psalm 2:9. Note in passing that Jacob Prasch lied about the King James translators in his article p 14, para 11, p 15, paras 1, 2. Their use of the term “very vulgar” indicated “words easy to be understood” 1 Co- rinthians 14:9 and they achieved that for the AV1611 far better than the modern versions. Gail Riplinger has shown the 1611 Holy Bible easily outclasses modern versions such as the NIV, NASV, TEV, NKJV in readability tests devised by the Flesch-Kincaid research company. The AV1611 out- ranked the modern versions in 23 of 26 comparisons. Jacob Prasch nevertheless complained, this writer’s emphases: “When Wycliffe and Tyndale translated their bibles their aim was that the common person could understand the Word of God instead of the Latin Vulgate in a language only the nobility and more educated clergy could read. Now the KJV has become the very kind of error in theory (sic) Coverdale (sic) wanted it to correct. The problem of trying to explain the gospel to a not well educated soul in the ‘verily, verily’ language of 16th century English is self evident, but the terminology of the KJV while not crude in the colloquial English of its day impresses people as profane today. Language such as ‘pisseth against a wall’ and ‘drinking one’s own piss’ is in modern language vulgar and therefore dishonouring to Christ and belittling of His Word. “...on the whole it remains a valid translation. As long as one treats the KJV as the literary relic it is, such language as “piss” and “ass” can be viewed in the context of the Old English, but when we try to make it a modern translation...it becomes a vulgar translation and vulgar people like vulgarity.” Note first that according to Jacob Prasch “a valid translation” then becomes “the literary relic” in the very next sentence. That is exactly how “unreasonable and wicked men” 2 Thessalonians 3:2 treated the apostle Paul. “And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them. And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead” Acts 14:18-19. Jacob Prasch’s comments themselves could do with improvement for the sake of understanding. He forgot that Myles Coverdale died in 1569, 35 years before the work on the 1611 Holy Bible was begun. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Coverdale. Yet again, Jacob Prasch has failed to specify what “the Word of God” and “His Word” is as a single document between two covers i.e. a book that can be handled, circulated, acquired and read in “words easy to be understood” 1 Corinthians 14:9 by “them...who are least esteemed in the church” 1 Corinthians 6:4 in accordance with the priesthood of all believers, 1 Peter 2:5, 9. That is 53 extremely dishonouring to the Lord Jesus Christ and grossly belittles His word when the Lord Him- self said “If a man love me, he will keep my words...” John 14:23. Jacob Prasch has lost them and can’t find them. Jacob Prasch has a problem with “the ‘verily, verily’ language of 16th century English.” As is usually the case with Bible critics, he cannot identify anyone “not well educated” who had a problem understanding an AV1611 expression, in this case the Lord’s expression “Verily, verily” that occurs 25 times in scripture, exclusively in the Gospel of John. If Jacob Prasch hadn’t been so desperate to attack Sister Riplinger, he might have obtained some in- sights from her book The Language of the King James Bible Chapter 1 How do you find the Bible’s built-in dictionary? Application of the principles that Sister Riplinger outlines in her book yields the following definition for the word “verily.” “If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison: go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses...And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us” Genesis 42:19, 21. “true men” speak truth, truthfully, truly. Joseph’s brothers did so in Genesis 42:21. “Verily” is truthfully or truly. “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven” John 6:32. “the true bread from heaven” speaks truth, truthfully, truly. The Lord Jesus Christ always did so. “Verily” is truthfully or truly. Jacob Prasch then has a problem with ““piss” and “ass.”” “Ass” is a current zoological term where by inspection the 90 Biblical occurrences of the term and the secular definition of the term Asinus plainly match each other in meaning. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asinus. Jacob Prasch has been wilfully ignorant again, 1 Corinthians 14:38. The expression “pisseth against a wall” occurs 6 times in scripture and the word “piss” twice, all in the Old Testament. By inspection, the speakers used exactly those expressions at the time in their own languages, not any of the feeble modern alternatives like “male” and “urine.” It may truthfully or “verily” be said of the 1611 Bible thou “hast...plentifully declared the thing as it is” Job 26:3. In addition, it is up to Jacob Prasch to identify even one individual among those of whom he confi- dently declares “vulgar people like vulgarity” who would be prepared to bear unequivocal testimony in writing that the 1611 Holy Bible is “All scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timo- thy 3:16. Jacob Prasch can’t and won’t do it, any more than he could find one “Mormon...Gay & Lesbi- an...racist...judaised (sic) kabbalist...Ecumenical” who would be prepared to bear unequivocal testimony in writing that the 1611 Holy Bible is “All scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16. He is as Ephraim and “Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart...” Hosea 7:11, all coo’s and no do’s. The apostle Paul gives the admonition for today’s believer with respect to language. Jacob Prasch missed it, naturally. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” Ephesians 4:29. Concerning Jacob Prasch’s anti-Biblical article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumeni- cal, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas and this writer’s statement from the letter of August 29th 2001 Para 11 p 12, para 1 p 13 states that “so influenced by Roman Catholicism is the KJV that it calls the Resurrection Day ‘Easter’”, the subject of “Easter” Acts 12:4 may be summarised as follows. 54 For the Biblical facts about the term “Easter” of which Jacob Prasch seems wilfully ignorant 1 Co- rinthians 14:38 note the following extracts. What applies to Twist and Curl applies equally to Jacob Prasch. Note that what follows does address secular writer Josephus’ notions about Herod. See Twist and Curl - Your Fiendly* Neighbourhood Bible Correctors pp 12-13. *Not a misspelling! www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php. Acts 12:4 KJV Bible: “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” Better Translation: “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people.” Comments: The Greek word pascha (Greek: πάσχα, Strong’s Concordance Number #G3957) in this verse has been inaccurately translated as Easter. This word should be translated as Passover, which agrees with the translation of pascha as Passover as found in Matthew 26:2 and other verses. None of the critics can resist taking a swipe at “Easter” in Acts 12:4. The BT commentator/critic of the Holy Bible is as ill-informed as the rest. One conspicuously anti-1611 Holy Bible critic is James White, author of The King James Only Con- troversy. Homing in on Acts 12:4, he insists, pp 233-234, 241, by reference to the supposed popular perception of Easter, the writings of the secular historian Josephus with respect to Herod and the term the “feast of the Jews” in John 2:13; 2:23; 6:4, 11:55 that the term “Passover” includes “the days of unleavened bread” so that the term “Easter” cannot be justified on the basis that the Passover for that year was already past. Drs Gipp1, Holland2 and Moorman3 have shown that all the critics, including James White, are wrong4. Dr Gipp states, his emphases, “The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passo- ver. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row…) “Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” The Passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the Passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away!” Note that Dr Gipp’s books The Answer Book, Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible, one of the most extensive histories of the KJB in print and his booklet entitled Answers to the Ravings of a Mad Plunger that refutes a variety of basic objections to the KJB are all extremely helpful. They are available from Daystar Publishing, www.daystarpublishing.org/king-james-defense/. Dr Holland states, in response to White, “None of this deals with the fact that in Scripture Passo- ver came before the Days of Unleavened Bread. In Mark 14:1 we read, “After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread.” Passover precedes the Days of Unleavened Bread even in the New Testament. None of the verses cited by White change this. In fact, three of them simply state that Passover was near (John 2:13; 6:4 and 11:55). John 2:23 speaks of many making a surface pretense of believing in Christ at the feast of the Passover. None of these verses show the two events as being called “Passover” as White states. As for Herod observing the Jewish feasts, this means little because as a politician he obeyed whatever was [convenient] for him while in political power, including both Jewish and Roman holidays. And, it should be re- 55 membered, that this “conspicuous observer of the Jewish customs and rituals” had just put James to death and was himself about to die by the hand of God for setting himself up as a god (Acts 12:21-23; Exodus 20:2-6).” Pastor Moorman states “the word “passover” did not even exist before William Tyndale coined it for his Version of 1526-31. His was also the first English Bible to use “Easter.”“ The critics do not mention that Tyndale’s New Testament has the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4, even though Tyndale invented the word “Passover.” Pastor Moorman continues, his under- linings. “To begin with, the Passover occurred before the feast of unleavened bread [the actual feast be- gins on Nisan 15th], not after! “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. (Num. 28:16, 17)… “Herod put Peter in Prison during the days of unleavened bread, and therefore after the Passover. The argument that the translation “Passover” should have been used as it is intended to refer to the entire period is ruled out by the inclusion of “these were the days of unleavened bread.” Scripture does not use the word “Passover” to refer to the entire period [according to the first mention of the word “passover” in Exodus 12:11].” Note also Numbers 33:3. “And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.” See also Answers to Your Bible Version Questions by David W. Daniels, Chick Publications, 2003, The Book of Acts by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, pp 355-357 and the Ruckman Reference Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2009, p 1452. White is wrong with respect to Acts 12:4 and “Easter” and so are all the critics of the 1611 Holy Bible, ‘the Greek’ notwithstanding. Jacob Prasch is wrong about every aspect of the word “Easter” Acts 12:4 as well. Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Paras 8, 9, Point 5i. Jacob Prasch’s letter of January 7th 2002 has not one but two Point 5’s. They have been designated Point 5i and Point 5ii for this work. Jacob Prasch remonstrates that, his emphasis, “You attempt to defend the KJV’s inclusion of times of sunrising and sunsetting and observance of religious holidays concerning Mary and the saints (in the original 1611 edition) by saying it’s not contrary to the rest of the Bible. I’m sorry, sir, (don’t apologise, this writer won’t) but my Bible (it must be, no-one else has a copy that anyone else knows of or can access) contains Colossians 2:16-18 and Romans 14:4, 5, which specifically prohibits putting such requirements on others, and prohibits allowing others to put them on us. “As is typical of Ruckmanites, you are so driven by the hollow issue of the KJV, that this becomes your focus, instead of what the God-inspired text actually says.” As is typical of ‘originals-onlyists,’ Jacob Prasch is so driven by the vacuous issue of the vanished originals that flannelling his way around their two-millennia non-existence has become his focus instead of facing up to the AV1611 reality of “the book of the LORD” Isaiah 34:16. See remarks above with respect to Hodge and Warfield. Jacob Prasch’s focus is not very effective. His correspondence shows that he cannot find “the God- inspired text” as a single document between two covers. Point 5i was Jacob Prasch’s irritation at the statement in the letter of August 29th 2001 that Para 2 p 14 states “The 1611 KJV has twelve pages outlining for each day of the year the risings and settings of the sun, ritual Psalms prescribed for each specific day, and required scripture readings. This is 56 followed by a calendar of religious holy days that must be observed…Such legalistic trash merely replaces the Mosaic calendar of Old Testament [feasts]…with a wholly unbiblical string of Roman Catholic ones. How Judaised, legalistic, and above all Roman Catholic and Ecumenical can a version of the bible be?”. You fail to mention how any of the introductory pages to the 1611 AV1611 have any bearing on the Text and the words of the AV1611 and you also fail to mention how any of these pages actually contradict scripture. The King James translators were well aware of your attitude when they composed The Epistle Dedicatory. “We shall be maligned by self conceited Breth- ren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil”. Exactly, because nowhere in your article do you actually reveal what “God’s holy Truth” is. You refer only to “loyalty and accuracy to [sic] the majority text manuscripts” para 10, p 15. Jacob Prasch in his article lists all the individuals referred to by the phrase “Mary and the saints (in the original 1611 edition)” and mentions in passing “ritual Psalms prescribed for each day, and required scripture readings.” Reading of scripture therefore appears to be a ritual to Jacob Prasch. Jacob Prasch of course has no “loyalty...to...the majority text manuscripts.” He has misled his readers again. See again this extract. The totally worthless Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are what Jacob Prasch calls the best Greek texts we have available to us. See Jacob Prasch’s comment as follows from the extracts cited earlier from www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Jacob Prasch pp 10, 22, 127, 136. A little patience and a little study will reward the diligent student with answers to all of those passages cited by KJV Only advocates regarding alleged doctrinal “corruption.” In each case the reputa- ble modern translations will be cleared of the charge...Many other examples could be examined that confirm that modern translations such as the NASB and NIV, far from being corrupt, are in fact the best examples of faithful English translations of the best Greek texts we have available to us. This writer answered Jacob Prasch’s Paras 8, 9, Point 5i, ii in the letter of January 28th 2002 as follows. In Romans 14:5 it is permissable [permissible] that “one man esteemeth one day above another” and Colossians 2:16 acknowledges that “an holyday” has real existence as “a shadow of things to come”, e.g. Isaiah 66. There are no prohibitions in these verses about how a church organises – or does not organise - the readings of lessons and Psalms during the year, which is the main reason for the calendar listings in the 1611 AV1611. Colossians 2:16 simply says “Let no man therefore judge you…”, whether or not one followed the Church of England pattern. According to scripture, there is liberty for both persuasions – but historically the dissemination of the AV1611 was accompanied by a growth in nonconformity, both in Britain and in the USA so your objection to the 1611 AV1611’s inclusion of a church calendar is mere gnat-straining, Matthew 23:24 [Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel]. Under this point you make reference to “the God-inspired text”. However, aside from “the original autographs” which no longer exist, you do not state where such a text can be found, in a form suitable for the ordinary believer, who would have neither time nor inclination to study Masoretic He- brew. DeWitt Talmage did so, which was the reason for including his exhortation – his theology and James I’s alleged treatment of Calvinists are beside the point. Your reluctance at this point, together with your wholly unwarranted and entirely unsubstantiated condemnation of Dr. Riplinger’s book The Language of the King James Bible, is instructive because it points to the real ‘cabalistic’ system, with respect to the modern perception of ‘scripture’. It is this. The Bible critic uses his education in ‘the original languages’ to set himself up as a kind of ‘high priest’ of scripture to whom all others must defer who wish to know what God actually said and what God’s words actually are [in violation of the priesthood of all believers, 1 Peter 2:5, 9]. 57 The Book that God has exalted, not only above “original autographs”, edited texts and scholarly opinion but even above His own name, Psalm 138:2, has this admonition for the self-made ‘high priest’. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered” Proverbs 28:26. As the above shows, Jacob Prasch’s capacity for finding error in the AV1611 is so bankrupt that he has to resort to tabulations in the opening pages of the 1611 AV1611 in order to criticise its text. His objections are as groundless as those of his concerning the Apocrypha. See Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Para 5, Point 3 and remarks. Just as prominent extant AV1611 Editions such as the Cambridge Cameo Edition, the Cambridge Concord Edition and the TBS Westminster Reference Bible do not contain the Apocrypha or any marginal Apocryphal references neither do they contain the Church of England tabulations that gave Jacob Prasch so much grief. Once again, therefore Jacob Prasch’s twisted mentality and his spat venom against the 1611 Holy Bible, this time in relation to the tabulations of the 1611 AV1611, are as Job said. “They are as stubble before the wind, and as chaff that the storm carrieth away” Job 21:18. Moreover, inspection of those tabulations reveals information that Jacob Prasch missed in his haste to denigrate “the book of the LORD” Isaiah 34:16. First, the reading of scripture both during worship services and on an individual daily basis is central to those tabulations. Jacob Prasch, not being especially committed to “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21 describes the reading of scripture as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash.” See above. Inspection of those tabulations reveals that 17th century Church of England worshippers were blessed with much more direct reading of scripture than typical church congregations today. That is entirely scriptural. “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” Nehemiah 8:8. Second, the tabulations provide a most helpful reading list that would encourage individuals to read the scriptures and search them as indicated on a daily basis as well as attend upon them for church services, at a time when such reading lists most likely did not otherwise exist. Encouragement of that nature is entirely scriptural as both Isaiah and the Lord Himself exhort. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them” Isaiah 34:16. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” John 5:39. Third, the tabulations help provide for order in worship services according to the Old Testament principle that Jacob Prasch in his wilful ignorance 1 Corinthians 14:38 of “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15 vilifies as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash” but is expressed in scripture as “ordinances of divine service” Hebrews 9:1. In short, what Jacob Prasch vilifies as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash” is instead as the apostle Paul enjoined “Let all things be done decently and in order” 1 Corinthians 14:40. Fourth, which will be sufficient for now, Jacob Prasch complains about “observance of religious holidays concerning Mary and the saints (in the original 1611 edition).” The tabulated entries for Mary are most revealing, as the following summary shows. The tabulations refer to Mary five times, with accompanying Psalms and Lessons. The lessons as tabulated for the whole calendar year include selections from the Apocrypha and are therefore described by the generic term lessons. The lessons are not referred to explicitly as Old and New Tes- tament readings. That is something else that Jacob Prasch missed in his indecent haste to dismiss structured readings of the Psalms and other scriptures as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash.” 58 Moreover, selections from the Apocrypha include only certain chapters, not the entire book. Read- ings from Wisdome, for example, consist only of Chapters 5, 6, 9, 12, 19 the final chapter, listed during January and February. By contrast, Old and New Testament Books are listed almost in their entirety. The five tabulated references to Mary are as follows, with specified Psalms and accompanying readings, two each, for morning and evening worship, both congregational and individual. The 1611 spellings have been used i.e. I for J, u for v, additional e’s. February 2nd Purification of Mary, Psalme 3, Wisdome 9, Marke 2, Wisdome 12, 1 Corinthians 14 March 25th Annunciation of Mary, Psalme 24, Ecclesiastes 2, Iohn 12, Ecclesiastes 3, 2 Timothy 4 July 1st Visitation of Mary, Psalme 1, Prouerbs 12, Luke 13, Prouerbs 13, Philippians 1 September 8th Nativity of Mary, Psalme 8, Obadiah, Matthew 9, Ionah 1, Romanes 9 December 8th Conception of Mary, Psalme 8, Isaiah 29, Actes 8, Isaiah 30, Iames 1 Note first that any member of the 1611 Church of England who followed the above tabulations would have been directed to no fewer than 23 chapters of “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15 in only five days, with only two Apocryphal chapters included. It is doubtful that today’s believer would address anything like that many chapters of scripture in that time. Yet that intense concentration of “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15 for the 1611 Church of Eng- land believer in less than a week is what Jacob Prasch dismisses as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash.” Only the first three of the five tabulations of Mary above are part of scripture but they are important parts of scripture for both the 1611 Church of England believer and today’s believer. It is helpful to have reminders and the Lord could well encourage the conscientious believer to read two additional chapters of scripture for those days, namely Luke 1 and Luke 2: Purification of Mary “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord” Luke 2:22. Annunciation of Mary “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women...And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” Luke 1:28, 30-31 and context. Visitation of Mary “And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth” Luke 1:39-40 and context, in particular Luke 1:46-55. Those revelations are what Jacob Prasch dismisses as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash.” Note especially Luke 2:22 and “her purification.” The tabulation for February 2nd Purification of Mary shows that Church of England got it right and the modern versions of which Jacob Prasch said Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not “corrupt” but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God got it wrong. The 1977, 1995 NASVs, 1984 NIV have the incorrect reading “their purification.” The 2011 NIV has the concocted weasel paraphrase that is still wrong for that reason “the purification rites required.” 59 See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ ‘O Biblios’ – The Book p 50 and this extract. No format changes have been made. Note that both the 1984, 2013 NWTs have the modern alteration. Luke 2:22 “her purification” has been altered to “their purification” or similar by the RV, Ne, 1978, 1984 NIV, JB, NJB, NWT. The 2011 NIV has an evasive neutral reading “the purification rites required.” Hills p 221 [standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf Chapter 5, The King James Version Defended 3rd Edition Edward F. Hills Th.D.], [Chapter 7, www.scribd.com/document/298396396/Believing-Bible-Study-Edward-F-Hills-pdf Believing Bible Study Edward F. Hills, Th.D, 2nd Edition] p 208, states that the modern reading is found in the majority of manuscripts and the Editions of Erasmus and Stephanus, including Berry’s Greek text. The AV1611 reading is found in the Editions of Beza and Elzevir, the Complutensian Polyglot (printed at Acala, Spain, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes and published 1522), No. 76 and a few other Greek cursives. This is one of the few occasions when the AV1611 departs from the majority of manuscripts (Hills, ibid. discusses the handful of other instances) but inspection of Leviticus 12 proves that the AV1611 reading is - as always - correct. “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest” Leviticus 12:6. See Appendix 4 The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy – re: The King James Only Controversy by James White for further details on Luke 2:22 and the correct AV1611 reading “her purification.” Wycliffe has a correct reading for Luke 2:22 but Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Matthew erroneously adopt the modern alteration. The Bishops’ and Geneva Bibles correct it to the subsequent AV1611 reading. Finally, noting that the apostle Paul was “in fastings often” 2 Corinthians 11:27, the tabulations are commendable for the numerous fasts that they list. These are listed for February 1st, 23rd, March 24th, June 23rd, 28th, July 24th, August 23rd, September 20th, October 27th, 31st, November 29th, De- cember 20th, 24th, 13 in all. These would be yet more “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash” according to Jacob Prasch but Nehe- miah initiated his ground-breaking ministry through such. Jacob Prasch probably wouldn’t understand. “And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven” Nehemiah 1:4. Moreover, what is to be discarded as “ritual” and “Such legalistic trash” according to Jacob Prasch achieved results in the 17th century that would pose a severe challenge for preachers and congregations alike today. The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure pp 115-116 states the following about Dr Lawrence Chaderton 1536-1640 who was of the First Cambridge Company of the King James translators. They worked on 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon. This incident occurred when Dr Chaderton was 85 years old or more. He lived to be 103. The italics are the author’s.

60 Dr. Chaderton is described by Archdeacon Echard, as “a grave, pious, and excellent preacher.” As an instance of his power in the pulpit, we will close this sketch with an incident which could hardly have taken place any where on this earth for the last hundred years [before 1858 when McClure’s book was published and no doubt since]. It is stated on high authority, that while our aged saint was visiting some friends in his native county of Lancashire, he was invited to preach. Having addressed his audience for two full hours by the glass, he paused and said, - “I will no longer trespass on your patience.” And now comes the marvel; for the whole congregation cried out with one consent, - “For God’s sake, go on, go on.” He, accordingly, proceeded much longer, to their great satisfaction and delight. “When,” says Coleridge, “after reading the biographies of [Izaak] Walton and his contemporaries, I reflect on the crowded congregations, who with intense interest came to their hour-and- two-hour-long sermons, I cannot but doubt the fact of any true progression, moral or intellectual, in the mind of the many. The tone, the matter, the anticipated sympathies in the sermons of an age, form the best moral criterion of the character of that age.” “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” Psalm 119:130. Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Paras 10, 11, Point 5ii. Jacob Prasch complains “Your attempted defence of Riplinger’s acrostic algebra, which is indeed in the vein of cabalistic and Gnostic mysticism, is too absurd to warrant intelligent consideration.” Had Jacob Prasch given that material “intelligent consideration” it would have been a first for his communication of January 7th 2002. He continues. “If your concluding statement, cited from a 19th century Calvinist (bearing in mind that King James persecuted Calvinists), that “I consider it (KJV) to be perfect bible”, were not so pathetic, it would border on the apostate, because it elevates a 16th century translation (sic) above the original autographs that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles and Hebrew prophets to write.” Jacob Prasch’s above opening comment of Point 5ii is a case of a hit dog yells. This is the statement from the letter of August 29th 2001 that incited it. Jacob Prasch refers to the 1611 Holy Bible as “a 16th century translation (sic)” though he manages to correct that error in his further correspondence of March 2nd 2002. See Jacob Prasch Backlash 2. You accuse Dr. Riplinger of “kabbalistic gnostic mysticism”, para 4, p 14, akin to “Michael Dros- nin’s ‘Bible Codes’” para 3, p 14. Clearly you have not made an honest evaluation of her book The Language of the King James Bible, which describes the precise and self-interpreting structure of the AV1611’s wording and bears no relation whatsoever to Drosnin’s ‘codes’. See Does God Believe in Atheists? John Blanchard, Evangelical Press 2000, p 407-408. John Blanchard notes that Drosnin’s codes are based on the theory of mathematician Eliyahu Rips who devised it from skip-sequences of words not from the AV1611 English Text but from the Maso- retic Hebrew Text of the first five books of the Bible Genesis-Deuteronomy i.e. the Hebrew Torah. Drosnin’s codes bear no relationship to Sister Riplinger’s work that does not use skip-sequences and addresses the English Text of the AV1611, not any Hebrew text. Jacob Prasch appears to have overlooked those salient facts. Sister Riplinger states the following in her book The Language of the King James Bible that shows further that in no way is her work associated with “kabbalistic gnostic mysticism”, para 4, p 14, akin to “Michael Drosnin’s ‘Bible Codes’” para 3, p 14 i.e. “in the vein of cabalistic and Gnostic mysticism.” Jacob Prasch lied again. His notions of: Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Para 11, Point 5ii. “...the original autographs that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles and Hebrew prophets to write.” are pathetic by comparison with Sister Riplinger’s evaluation of “the true sayings of God” Revela- tion 19:9 that follows.

61 WORDS IN THE WORD The Language of the King James Bible is an introduction to the various magnificent intricacies of our beloved English Bible. I will attempt to show the following. 1. The King James Bible contains God’s Built-in Dictionary, defining each word, in its context, using the very words of the Webster’s and Oxford English Dictionaries! 2. The King James Bible has a vocabulary and reading level which slowly builds progressively from Genesis to Revelation. 3. The King James Bible uses words with the appropriate sound symbolism. It has a vocabulary that phonaesthetically fulfils the Bible’s own description of itself as “powerful.” 4. The King James Bible is the only extant access we have to the pure language lexicons of the 16th and 17th centuries. 5. The King James Bible gives a transparent view of the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary, grammar and syntax. 6. The King James Bible has an internationally recognizable vocabulary and spelling. 7. The King James Bible uses literary devices which enhance doctrinally important concepts and memorability. 8. The King James Bible has a sentence structure which enhances accurate doctrinal interpretation. 9. The King James Bible’s words and sentences are patterned and woven through its fabric so as to provide a consistency of form and content. 10. The King James Bible has the precision and longevity of the legal document that it is. (To be equitable, all English speaking persons must be judged by the same criteria.)... More than one billion people speak English. The pages of The King James Bible are written with “the point of a diamond” for “the table of their heart” (Jer. 17:1). Jacob Prasch’s “original autographs” are by comparison “but dust and ashes” Genesis 18:27 and no-one knows even where they are or what happened to them, certainly not Jacob Prasch. This is the statement from the letter of August 29th 2001 about “a 19th century Calvinist” that upset Jacob Prasch further. For the time being, I leave you with this quote from Thomas DeWitt Talmage of the Dutch Re- formed Church, a great minister of the Book during the latter part of the 19th century. “Now let us divide off...Let those people who do not believe the Bible and who are critical of this and that part of it, go clear over to the other side. Let them stand behind the devil's guns...Give us the out-and-out opposition of infidelity rather than the work of these hybrid theologians, these mongrel ecclesiastics, these half-evoluted people who BELIEVE the Bible and do NOT believe it. I TAKE UP THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION; I CONSIDER IT TO BE A PERFECT BIBLE” (Vol. 4, p 187; Vol. 18, p 255). Jacob Prasch’s outburst in Point 5ii was answered as follows in the letter of January 28th 2002. It is hoped that the reader will excuse the repetition. He points that follow are important. Under this point you make reference to “the God-inspired text” [Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Paras 8, 9, Point 5i.]. However, aside from “the original autographs” which no longer exist, you do not state where such a text can be found, in a form suitable for the ordinary believer, who would have neither time nor inclination to study Masoretic Hebrew. DeWitt Talmage did so, which was the reason for including his exhortation – his theology and James I’s alleged treatment of Calvinists are beside the point. Your reluctance at this point, together with your wholly unwarranted and entirely unsubstantiated condemnation of Dr. Riplinger’s book The Language of the King James Bible, is instructive because it points to the real ‘cabalistic’ system, with respect to the modern perception of ‘scripture’. It 62 is this. The Bible critic uses his education in ‘the original languages’ to set himself up as a kind of ‘high priest’ of scripture to whom all others must defer who wish to know what God actually said and what God’s words actually are. The Book that God has exalted, not only above “original autographs”, edited texts and scholarly opinion but even above His own name, Psalm 138:2, has this admonition for the self-made ‘high priest’. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered” Proverbs 28:26. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus three unclean spirits – Revelation 16, pp 26-28 for a further response to Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Paras 10, 11, Point 5ii. No format changes have been made. The individual addressed directly is a certain Pastor Richard Klueg. Everything stated below applies equally to Jacob Prasch, by inspection of his correspondence. References have been inserted in braces []. Appendix 6 contains extracts from that document in response to anti-Biblical dogma from Richard Klueg, pp 14, 16, 20, 21-22, 25, 27. Both Richard Klueg and Jacob Prasch violate the priesthood of all believers, 1 Peter 2:5, 9, by means of their ‘originals-onlyism.’ “Superstitious Nonsense” You next take Mrs. Riplinger to task for statements which are said to be “downright ludicrous” because they refer to a city motto and zip code [New Age Bible Versions Gail Riplinger, 1993, 2008 Editions] p 41. These references do not appear in the 1993 edition of New Age Versions which I possess but it appears from your citation that the note is parenthetical and therefore not central to Mrs. Riplinger’s main argument in this chapter of her book, which is based on Isaiah 14. You are therefore gnat straining, Matthew 23:24, yet another tactic of Bible critics, see remarks concerning James 1 and Erasmus. 2014 update. Post-1993 editions of New Age Bible Versions p 41 read (“I will,” is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606 [Chicago, Il.]. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.) However, city names have significance in the Bible. The “city of destruction” Isaiah 19:18, is well- known, thanks to John Bunyan. Note that the NIV translators exercise their imagination again in this verse and insert the word “allegiance”, although it is NOT in “the Hebrew”! Then there is “MYS- TERY, BABYLON THE GREAT” Revelation 17:5 and Jerusalem “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt” Revelation 11:8. Moreover, the sinister significance of bar codes is well established even today, as is the SIX pointed device which totals the grocery bill in the local supermarket, Revelation 13:18. Why could not a modern city motto and zip code have equal significance? Can you actually prove otherwise? You then dismiss as “drivel” Mrs. Riplinger’s illustration of the heresies common to the NASV and NIV, signified by common letters N, V and their omissions of the true scriptures, signified by the letter string AV. You could have at least paid Mrs. Riplinger the courtesy of reproducing her chart correctly. Observe the following. 2015 update. Reference (1) is New Age Bible Versions 1993 Edition. The 2008 Edition reads the same. This writer did not include the struck-through letters of Steps 2, 4 of the chart i.e. NIV was simply taken as I and ASI, NV simply as SI, N respectively.

63 Steps in Chart Your Version Actual Version (1) p 149 Step 1: (NASV - NIV) - AV = X (NASV - NIV) - AV = X Step 2: NASV - NIV) - AV = X (NASV - I) - AV = X Step 3: (ASI + NV) - AV = X (ASI + NV) - AV = X Step 4: ASI + NV - AV = X SI + N - AV = X Step 5: SIN = X SIN = X The chart is not “drivel” but a useful introduction to Mrs. Riplinger’s exposure of the heretical new version alterations and omissions which she describes under the headings of “Abominable Customs”, “Porn”, “Crown or Cross?” “Adequate or Perfect?”, “Alot like Lot?”, “$$$ or Righteous”. The ter- minus of these heresies is the worship of devils, [New Age Bible Versions Gail Riplinger, 1993, 2008 Editions] p 218ff. You ask “what kind of person has time to sit around looking up zip codes and playing games with alphabet letters when there is so much to be done for the kingdom of God?” How about addressing the main content of this section of Mrs. Riplinger’s work, instead of resorting to gnat straining yet again? You entitle this section of your document “Superstitious Nonsense”. It is an appropriate title for much of your document. Some examples are “Faith is dependent upon regeneration and not vice versa” p 2. “The NIV is correct, then, in translating helel...as “morning star”“ p 3. “The NIV (in Isaiah 57:15)...indicates masculine gender in a way the KJV does not” p 4. “The LXX...was produced by Greek speaking Jews before the time of Christ” p 5. “Erasmus...supported the pope against Martin Luther” p 5. “God inspired the Bible in the original languages and in the original manuscripts” p 7. As for the “merits” of the respective translations supported by James 1 on one hand and Westcott on the other, I quote again from Dr. Gipp [The Answer Book Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., Samuel C. Gipp, 1989. 2014 update. See samgipp.com/42-arent-modern-english-translations-easier-to-understand/ Question 42. Aren’t Mod- ern Translations Easier to Understand?] p 113: “Today’s modern translations haven’t been able to spark a revival in a Christian school, let alone be expected to close a bar. In fact, since the arrival of our modern English translations, beginning with the ASV of 1901, America has seen: 1. God and prayer kicked out of our public school. 2. Abortion on demand legalised. 3. Homosexuality accepted nationally as an “alternate life style”. 4. In home pornography via TV and VCR. 5. Child kidnapping and pornography running rampant. 6. Dope has become an epidemic. 7. Satanism is on the rise. If this is considered a “revival” then let’s turn back to the King James to STOP it”. In short, it is you, not Mrs. Riplinger, who has distorted history.

64 “Conclusion” You accuse Mrs. Riplinger of handling “the Holy Bible carelessly and deceitfully” on the basis of 2 Timothy 2:15, NIV. Yet you also state “No English version...is perfect. God inspired the Bible in the original languages and in the original manuscripts”. YOU therefore don’t have “the Holy Bi- ble”. By your own admission no-one has. According to you, all anyone has is an imperfect version and more work is needed to produce “the most accurate and effective translations possible”. You can therefore hardly accuse Mrs. Riplinger of “handling the Holy Bible” in any way, shape or form whatsoever, according to your own standards. It is therefore YOU, not Mrs. Riplinger, who has been careless and deceitful. For the “effectiveness” of the modern versions, see Dr. Gipp’s comments above on the national life of the USA since the proliferation of these versions. Moreover, not only does no-one HAVE “the Holy Bible”, no-one ever HAD “the Holy Bible”, according to you. “Bible” means BOOK, not “languages” and not “manuscripts”. There never was on the face of this earth any “inspired” Bible “in the original languages and in the original manuscripts”. There was never any such collation of documents in history and you signally fail to prove otherwise. However, 2 Timothy 3:16 states “ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God”, not just “the originals”. This verse refers to the scriptures to which Timothy had access, verse 15, which could hardly have been “the originals” penned by Moses. That “inspiration” extends to copies and translations of “the originals” is evident from Deuteronomy 17:18, 19 and Acts 2:17-21. The “original” of Acts 2:17-21 was in Greek but it consists of a translation of Joel 2:28-32, the “original” of which was in Hebrew. Note also Genesis 42:14-24, where “an interpreter” is present, verse 23. Clearly the “original Hebrew” must have included a translation of Joseph’s words. Deuteronomy 17:18, 19 states “he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law”. “This law” is both “that which is before the priests the Levites” AND the copy retained by the king. This is the “scriptural” position with respect to “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15. YOUR position is totally unscriptural and it is therefore not surprising that you are unable to cite any scriptures in support of the notion that “God inspired the Bible in the original languages and in the original manuscripts”. You state further “I have seen evidence already that (New Age Versions) will be the cause of much needless strife between believers”. What evidence? You give no evidence. You simply make a bald statement which is to be accepted as dogma. This is yet another well-worn tactic of Bible critics. Dean Burgon [The Revision Revised Dean John William Burgon, Centennial Edition, 1883-1983, A.G. Hobbs Publications, P.O. Box 14218, Fort Worth TX76117, 1983. 2014 update. See also www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36722?msg=welcome_stranger#toc9 The Revision Revised by John Wil- liam Burgon] p xxvi summed up your attitude as follows, together with that of Westcott and Hort and numerous modern translators. “It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when it ought to argue. It reiterates when it is called on to explain...”I am sir Oracle.”” Did you check with Kenneth Hill and Noah Hutchings, “South West Radio Church”, Texe Marrs “World of Prophecy” and Dr. Chambers “Paw Creek Ministries”? All these gentlemen and others interviewed Mrs. Riplinger on their radio programmes. Mrs. Riplinger has also been interviewed by the wife of Dr. Rev. Donald Waite of “The Bible for Today” ministry. All these interviews are available on audio and/or video cassettes. Did you obtain copies in order to ascertain how much “needless strife” has been generated by New Age Versions before you made your accusations against Mrs. Riplinger? If not, why not?

65 2014 update. See antipas.net/cool_swrc.htm, www.pawcreek.org/ and www.texemarrs.com/. Texe Marrs, though supportive of 1611 Holy Bible and Sister Riplinger, has since the letter to Pastor Rev. Klueg was written, has regrettably become anti-Israel and anti-Jew. For a summary of the scriptural position of Israel and the Jew see www.timefortruth.co.uk/alan-oreilly/ Israel - Past, Present, Fu- ture (& Contents Page) see also Appendices 1 & 2 - Facts, Heresies. You accuse Mrs. Riplinger of stirring up dissension but then you insist that “Faithful modern English versions that make the eternal truths of the gospel more accessible to our generation are to be ap- plauded and used, not condemned unfairly.” Aside from the fact that it is you, not Mrs. Riplinger, who is guilty of unfair condemnation, do you seriously believe that the appearance of 100 English versions in 100+ years since 1881 [A Brief History of English Bible Translations Dr. Laurence M. Vance] is not likely to “stir up dissension”? As for the accessibility of the gospel via “faithful modern English versions”, which as I have shown above are NOT faithful to “the holy scriptures”, I refer you once again to Dr. Gipp’s comments and to the following, which describes a similar situation in the UK. This situation has developed since the rejection of the AV1611 as “the holy scriptures” by the national church and since the proliferation of the modern versions. 2014 update. 256 Bible versions have appeared since and including the RV NT of 1811. See baptist-potluck.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/bible-versions-since-1881.html. Rev. M.J. Roberts, editor of The Banner of Truth Magazine and minister of Greyfriars Free Church in Inverness said in his address in the TBS Quarterly Record, No. 529, October to December 1994: “The Bible is a lost book in Britain today. It has little influence on national life any more*...We have to admit that we are not seeing souls converted in great numbers. It does not matter where you go. Go to Wales, to Scotland, or to England here. Few are being converted in these days. Where are the days when the Bible was being blessed to the conversion of thousands and ten thousands?...The problem is here. This book is not being read so as to bring light to bear upon men’s lives. Therefore the tragedy is that men are not being converted to Christ. Could any curse in this life be greater? Could any judgment be more awful than this?” *One also observes little influence on Christian life! I think the answer is patently obvious. Your concluding statement is “Whatever version you choose, commit yourself to read it and follow it. Do not allow yourself to be distracted from God’s holy ways by books such as New Age Bible Versions.” What about the version that God chooses? Didn’t He promise to “guide...into all truth” John 16:13? If you “read...and follow” the version you choose, aren’t you in danger of following yourself? Wasn’t this Eve’s mistake, enticed by Satan, Genesis 3? Doesn’t the Bible warn against such folly? “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” Isaiah 53:6. How could you “be distracted from God’s holy ways” by a book which throughout its 700 pages en- courages you to believe absolutely in ONE Book as the FINAL authority? Whom can you cite who lived an UNholy life by “reading and following” the AV1611? Billy Sunday perhaps, J. Frank Nor- ris, Thomas De Witt Talmage? I will leave you to ponder these questions in your own time. In the meantime, I will state in conclusion that if any of the decline described by Dr. Gipp and Rev. Roberts is to be reversed before the Lord returns, it will be through the ministry of Bible believers like Mrs. Riplinger, not Bible critics like yourself. This writer’s evaluation of Jacob Prasch Backlash 2 follows. It will be brief.

66 Jacob Prasch Backlash 2 Jacob Prasch Backlash 2 Para 1 “Your out of context citations of scriptural passages in a feeble efforts to support your ludicrous beliefs, is too absurd to deserve serious comment.” Had Jacob Prasch made any such “serious comment” it would have been a first for both his article The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas and his correspondence of January 7th 2002 and March 6th 2002. He is of course incapable of explaining where this writer took anything out of context. Nehemiah, for example, in Nehemiah 6:8, was rebuking inveterate “liars unto thee” Deuteronomy 33:29 like Jacob Prasch, Nehemiah 6:6-8. “The book that God wrote was in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew...” According to Jacob Prasch’s perspective, God then lost it and not even God can find it again even though “God...looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven” Job 28:23-24. Moreover, the book about which Jacob Prasch dogmatically insists “The book that God wrote was in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew...” left no progeny that Jacob Prasch can identify so it must have been sterile and cannot have been “incorruptible...the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever...” 1 Peter 1:23 of which Peter said “the word of the Lord endureth for ever” 1 Peter 1:25. “...not in 17th century English*, and had nothing to do with a [falsely accused, see Stephen A. Coston Sr’s work King James Unjustly Accused?] Freemason king whom Britain’s leading [unidentified] historians agree [Lady Antonia Fraser disagrees] was a [falsely accused] debauched [falsely accused, see Stephen A. Coston Sr’s work King James Unjustly Accused?] homosexual who persecuted [unidentified] evangelical Christians, such as [unidentified] Puritans.” *“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” 1 Corinthians 14:38. In the first place, the Eng- lish of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. See standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf Chapter 8. “...The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire” 2 Peter 2:22. Jacob Prasch Backlash 2 Paras 2, 3 “Even the Trinitarian Bible Society will have nothing to do with the pathetic likes of Riplinger or Peter Ruckman. God indeed is not mocked but the nonsense you write is so idiotic you make a mockery of yourself [“We are fools for Christ’s sake...” 1 Corinthians 4:10]. “...We have no time for foolishness.” Regardless of anything he might profess to the contrary, Jacob Prasch has no time for “the wisdom of God.” “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” 1 Corinthians 1:21. The Trinitarian Bible Society “will have nothing to do with” serious enquiries about “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15. It will plead the Fifth same as Jacob Prasch. See over-page and note the release date of May 30th 2013. The society’s promise of If your enquiry is raised in English, we hope to respond to you within 1 to 2 working days has stretched into almost two years. The Trinitarian Bible Society could usefully follow Paul’s admonition. “But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay” 2 Corinthians 1:18.

Enquiries and Requests Please retain for your records. Thank you for your enquiry. We acknowledge receipt of the following information: Name: Dr Alan James O'Reilly E-mail Address: Alan O’Reilly Type of Enquiry or Request: The So-Called Pure Cambridge Edition Message: Dear Sir Thank you for the latest Quarterly Record with the article of the above title. Mr Bridger [Brigden] makes a number of references to the original Hebrew and Greek and appears to endorse the quoted statement from the Westminster Confession to the effect that only the original Hebrew and Greek are inspired scripture and that they are the final authority for the Church. Can you therefore please tell me where the original Hebrew and Greek may be obtained today as a single document between two covers? (I am aware that various editions of the Hebrew Masoretic and Received Greek Texts exist but I am unsure which of these is agreed all round to be inspired scripture and the final authority for the Church.) Please note that this confirmation is generated automatically. If your enquiry is raised in English, we hope to respond to you within 1 to 2 working days. For other languages, please allow longer. Yours sincerely, Customer Support [email protected] Trinitarian Bible Society Tyndale House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England Tel.: +44 (0) 20 8543-7857 Web site: www.tbsbibles.org Registered Charity No.: 233082 (England) SC038379 (Scotland) No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6369 - Release Date: 05/30/13 Conclusion for The 1611 Holy Bible versus Lying satanic Jacob Prasch Prequel, Jacob Prasch Backlashes 1, 2 “For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail” Isaiah 32:6.

68 Appendix 1 - James White and the ‘King James Only Controversy’ so-called The following note was sent some years ago to a former pastor of a church this writer attends about James White’s book. The note was sent on May 21st 2007. No reply was ever received. Some updates in braces [] have been inserted. Dear ****, Since you kindly lent me the book of the above title [The KJO Controversy], I thought I should bring you up to date on my study of it over the past year. Having read it, I decided for my own edification to carry out my own review of the book, also bringing together the work of various other authors who have answered some the issues that James White raised. My review is a little over half-finished [it is now complete, see link above in letter of August 29th 2001 to Jacob Prasch], having reached the end of Chapter 6. I anticipate that, Lord willing and if the Lord doesn’t come back in the meantime (I hope He will), I should have the review completed by early next year. You were also kind enough to read my book on the subject, ‘O Biblios,’ wherein my stance on the matter of the Bible is expressed. My researches into James White’s thesis have, if anything, served to strengthen that stance. It should also be said that James White hasn’t changed his stance either, as you can see from his web site, aomin.org/kjvo.html. I haven’t read his answers to his critics in detail but they appear to be mainly a repetition of the contents of his book. They may merit a closer study in the future but for now, I can only deal with one controversy at a time. Although my review is not complete, I have nevertheless been able to identify six main postulates that, even if not expressed as such, James White puts forward in his book. I have attached a summary of them, together with my summary answers, for your interest. Let me know if you have any problem opening the attachment. [See Appendix 4 The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy – re: The King James Only Controversy by James White for that item] In addition, I have been able to form some conclusions about James White and his work, which I have listed below. Eventual completion of my review of his book will not change them - though it might add to them. I believe that they, together with the attached material, should be kept in mind by anyone who reads White’s book and who may be swayed by the opinions of some of his more prominent supporters in this country, e.g. homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/KJVonly.htm Malcolm Bowden of the Creation Science Movement. [See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Malcolm Bowden.] moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/discernment/ruckmanism/is-your-modern-translation- corrupt-2 Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries

69 My conclusions are as follows. 1. James White is a hireling. Although he recommends the purchase of “multiple translations,” p 7 of his book, he has a vested financial interest in persuading bible readers to buy the NASV, New American Standard Version, because he is (or was in the 1990s) a consultant to the NASV committee and “has a financial relationship with the Lockman Foundation.” See www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/riplinger.htm. [The site is no longer available. However, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_%28theologian%29. The information is correct.] It is therefore easy to see why James White does not want bible readers to be ‘KJV-Only.’ 2. James White is not missionary minded [neither is Jacob Prasch]. Whatever he may profess to the contrary, James White is not mindful of the mission field. Certainly his book displays little or no such concern for distributing the scriptures world-wide. He betrays his lack of concern in his statement above with respect to the purchase of “multiple translations.” Dr Mrs Gail Riplinger, whom White attacks repeatedly in his book, exposes White’s inward-looking attitude for what it is in her book, Which Bible is God’s Word?, p 92-3 [2nd Edition 2007 p 116]. “It is scandalous for rich Americans to have ten versions of the bible, instead of just one. Four million dollars was invested in the New King James Version; subsequent to that; several million dollars was spent on advertising campaigns. Many tribes and peoples around the world have no King James Bible type bibles at all; the Albanian bible was destroyed during the communist regime. Many of the tribes in New Guinea do not have a bible in their language. But, these countries have no money to pay the publishers. The publishers are not interested in giving these people bibles; they are just interested in making bibles that can produce a profit for their operation.” Dr Mrs Riplinger’s latest work, In Awe of Thy Word, which runs into almost 1,000 pages, demonstrates how particularly well-suited the AV1611 is for transmission into foreign languages and how it has long been esteemed by missionaries for that reason. All modern versions fall short of the AV1611 in this respect. James White revels somewhat on his web site, www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=664, in Dr Mrs Riplinger’s designation of him as “a rude, crude heretic.” But she didn’t start out that way in her view of him, www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit5.html. So if James White eventually acquired that designation from a gracious Christian lady like Sister Riplinger, you can rest assured, he earned it. 3. James White is his own final authority. Nowhere in his book does James White specify what is the word of God, consisting of the words of God, and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, between two covers and where the members of the Body of Christ can find it [neither does Jacob Prasch]. It is abundantly clear from his book that he doesn’t believe the AV1611 to be such. However, he betrays his own self-made approach to final authority in such statements as these, my underlining. P 95. “The NIV’s rendering of the term “flesh” in Paul’s epistles as “sinful nature”...is a bit too interpretive for my tastes.” P 160-1. “Scripture [a selection of modern versions and excluding the AV1611] records Jesus’ call to take up the cross in three places, and this is sufficient.”* *One wonders if White has informed the Godhead of his conclusion in this respect and advised Them of the necessary amendments to the word that “is settled in heaven” Psalm 119:89. Hopefully not, because, as it happens, White is wrong. Only Mark 10:21 as it stands unequivocally* in the AV1611 has the expression “take up the cross.” The other three 70 verses, Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 all refer to “his cross” not “the cross.” As you will appreciate, there is a distinct difference. *Although on this occasion, the NKJV appears to have overlooked the usual footnote that would eliminate the expression, in accordance with the Nestle Aland-United Bible Societies text underlying the NASV, NIV etc. 4. James White is economical with the truth. James White repeatedly accuses ‘KJV- Onlyists’ of being “inconsistent” pp 60, 71, 72, 88, 209, 230, 231, 233, 248, 249 and of adopting “double standards” pp 107, 162, 170, 173, 232, 236, 244. At the very least, this is a case of ‘pots and kettles.’ For example, James White insists, p 38, that the AV1611 has added to the word of God by means of the phrase “and the Lord Jesus Christ” at the end of Colossians 1:2, even though the phrase has overwhelming attestation from a vast and varied body of sources, including Codex Aleph or Sinaiticus. See Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, A Closer Look!, p 131. The phrase is in fact, one of the ‘least disputable’ of all the so-called ‘disputed passages.’ Yet White also describes Codex Aleph as “a great treasure,” p 33 - in spite of supposedly adding to the word of God in Colossians 1:2. What he neglects to tell the reader is the manner in which Aleph definitely does add to the word of God, by means of the New Testament apocryphal books, The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barna- bas. Gail Riplinger reveals in her book New Age Versions, p 557ff, that these two books urge the reader to “take the name of the beast, give up to the beast and form a one- world government,” along with other Satanic exhortations. James White neglected to mention any of this in his book but such is his “great treasure.” He is clearly being “inconsistent” and applying a “double standard.” (And it is therefore easy to see why White and his allies despise Gail Riplinger and her work in equal measure.) 5. James White leans heavily towards Rome and Watchtower. In spite of what James White would undoubtedly profess to the contrary, the departures from the AV1611 that White favours and which occur mostly in the NASV, NIV, also occur to a considerable extent in Catholic and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ bibles. White levels criticisms at 237 passages of scripture as they stand in the AV1611, 250 verses in total, of which 24 verses are from the Old Testament. Of that selection, the NIV stands with the AV1611 in only 9 of the 237 passages, or in 4% of the total. How- ever, it lines up against the AV1611 with the JR, DR, JB and NWT* in 28% of the passages, with the JB and NWT in 69% of the passages and with one or more of the JR, DR, JB, NWT in 89% of the passages that White mentions. *DR - Douay-Rheims, Challoner’s 1749 Revision, JR - Jesuit Rheims 1582 New Tes- tament, from the web and probably a reproduction of the DR - it doesn’t differ, JB - Je- rusalem Bible, NWT - New World Translation James White won’t see himself as a Vatican-Watchtower slave but he is. Note also that in these last days of “perilous times” 2 Timothy 3:1, the modern so-called ‘evangelical’ versions are drifting further from the 1611 Authorised Holy Bible than even the known apostate versions. The time of faith being “made shipwreck” cannot be long delayed, 1 Timothy 1:20 - though I admit that is a personal view. In sum, I do not regard either James White or his work as trustworthy, a summary view that I believe will be reinforced as the review progresses [It was]. For now, for what it’s worth, I 71 am quite happy for you to display this note and the accompanying attachment on the church notice board and/or circulate them however you may choose to and I will be quite happy to respond to any questions that may arise therefrom. [That never happened.] I apologise for the length of this note but I hope that some useful clarification has been provided with respect to the issues that James White’s book raises. Thank you again for the loan of it. Yours in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Chronicles 14:11, [“ And Asa cried unto the LORD his God, and said, LORD, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O LORD our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O LORD, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee.”] Alan

72 Appendix 2 – Testimonies to the Inspiration of the AV1611 - Summaries See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php: Reply to DiVietro’s attack on Gail Riplinger – Flotsam Flush pp 18-19, 649, 756-760 D. A. Waite Response, Testimonies to the Inspiration of the AV1611, pp 57-60 and these extracts. No format changes have been made. Dr DiVietro then accuses Dr Mrs Riplinger of being one of only a recent few who have stated that the 1611 English Holy Bible is “all scripture...given by inspiration of God.” This is an outrageous lie on the part of Dr DiVietro. See above for Dr Mrs Riplinger’s citation of Archbishop Cranmer and his stance on the Great Bible, which was a faithful precursor to the 1611 English Holy Bible. See also this author’s earlier work5 with respect to Testimonies to the Inspiration of the AV1611 and especially Bishop Ryle’s remarks on the English Reformers of the 18th century, emphases are the author’s and note the unequivocal stance on the inspiration of the 1611 English Holy Bible as the Book of God, this author’s under-lining. ““The spiritual reformers of the last century taught constantly the sufficiency and supremacy of Holy Scripture. The Bible, whole and unmutilated, was their sole rule of faith and practice. They accepted all its statements without question or dispute. They knew nothing of any part of Scripture being uninspired. They never allowed that man has any “verifying faculty” within him, by which Scripture statements may be weighed, rejected or received. They never flinched from asserting that there can be no error in the Word of God; and that when we cannot understand or reconcile some part of its contents, the fault is in the interpreter and not in the text. In all their preaching they were eminently men of one book. To that book they were content to pin their faith, and by it to stand or fall. This was one grand characteristic of their preaching. They honoured, they loved, they rever- enced the Bible.”” Belief in the inspiration of the 1611 English Holy Bible is certainly not recent. Neither, as this author’s earlier work shows, is it limited to a supposed small minority of contemporary individuals such as Dr Mrs Riplinger (and this author), who believe that the 1611 English Holy Bible is indeed “all scripture...given by inspiration of God.” ““In all these instances the Bible means the translation authorised by King James the First…to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and wor- ships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God” – George Bernard Shaw”... Dr DiVietro is clearly in conflict with John Bunyan with respect to the establishment of the words of God. The following extract is from The Word: God Will Keep It by Joey Faust, Fundamental Books, 2011, pp 56-58. Emphases are the author’s. “The following dialogue is titled, A Relation of the Imprisonment of Mr. John Bunyan, Minister of the Gospel at Bedford, in November, 1660...[[appearing before] attorney William Foster]... ““Foster: ‘You are ignorant and do not understand the Scriptures; for how can you understand them when you know not the original Greek? etc.’ ““Bunyan: ‘It is your opinion that none can understand the Scriptures but those that had the original Greek, etc., then but very few of the poorest sort should be saved (this is harsh,) yet the Scrip- ture saith, that God hides his things from the wise and prudent (that is, from the learned of the world,) and reveals them to babes and sucklings.’” Dr DiVietro is therefore in conflict with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as Luke 10:21 shows. 73 “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight”... David Cloud (and Dr DiVietro) may wish to reflect on the following excerpts from The Word: God Will Keep It, Chapter 9, 1850-1899 by Joey Faust, his emphases. Either of them is, of course, free to consult with Bro. Faust to check that he got the context of the remarks correct in every case. Bro. Faust has almost 200 pages of quotations from 1611 to the present day testifying to individuals who have believed that the 1611 Holy Bible is “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Chapter 9, 1850-1899 of Bro. Faust’s book consists of approx- imately 60 of those pages and the excerpts below have been selected because they contain the word “inspired” or similar with respect to the 1611 Holy Bible. However, the remaining quotations in Chapter 9, 1850-1899 carry the same force for the 1611 Holy Bible as unequivocally “all scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16. All the quotations that Bro. Faust gives with respect to the 1611 Holy Bible as perceived by generations of the Lord’s people over the past 400 years have the same force. ““Not a few seem to believe, or at least act as if the King James’ Version was inspired, and conse- quently infallible...” (James Challen, The Necessity of a New Version and the Means of Procuring It) “1852: “...many very sincere and pious Christians...entertain the unreasoning prejudice that our English translation is not only a faithful exposition of the word of God, but they actually regard it as if it was also an inspired translation.” (J. H. McCulloch, Analytical Investigations, 1852) “1858: “...for a great multitude of readers the English Version is not the translation of an inspired Book, but is itself the inspired Book.”” (Richard C. Trench, On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, 1858) “1865: “[Lyman Beecher’s] daughter tells us, as his writings show...‘without the shadow of a doubt, that we do have in our English translation the authoritative, inspired declarations of God.’” (Christian Examiner, Volume 79, 1865). “Lyman Beecher (1775-1863), was a Presbyterian minister...who was known for his strong anti- Catholic and anti-Unitarian views... “1869: “And yet there is a tendency in certain classes – even an increasing tendency, to regard the Anglican Bible as a resultant of inspiration...” (Anon., What Saith the Scripture? Bible Difficulties, 1869) “1871: “...it is obvious that the popular notion that every word of the authorised translation of the Bible is inspired opens the door to endless errors...” (John Moore Capes, Reasons for Returning to the Church of England, 1871) “1875: “...Why meddle with a version which presents the word of God in all its substantial integrity, - which has gone home to the hearts of the people, and is by them regarded as containing the very words of inspiration?’...” (Henry Charles Fox, On the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Scripture, 1875) “1878: “...Such dogmas as...the plenary inspiration of the King James’ Bible...are fast dying out of all cultured minds...” (J. M. Peebles, New York Freethinkers Association, 1878) “1878: “A certain class...is made up of worshippers of the letter, to whom the traditional version has all the sacredness of the inspired original...” (The New York Times, September 23, 1878) “1880: “...Familiarity for generations with the ipsissima verba [i.e. very words] of the Authorized Version has led to an unconscious acceptance of the English words as being themselves literally inspired.” (Walker Purton, Churchman, Issue 1, 1880) 74 “1881: “...our people...have been in the habit of using our English Bible, not as if it were the translation of the inspired book, but the inspired book itself...” (George Salmon, The Revision of the New Testament; A Paper Read Before the Irish Church Conference, April, 1881) “1881: “Another class will oppose the new revision...To them, the King James version of the Bible is the inspired Word of God, in all its language. They regard a revision as a tampering with the sacred text, and as essential profanation.” (J. G. Holland, Scribner’s Monthly, 1881) “1881: “[In the RV] there will be enough...change to disturb the minds of those who have not only believed in verbal inspiration, but practically in the verbal inspiration of the authorized English version.” (The Bystander, Volume 2, 1881) “1881: “The great mass of persons in Christendom to whom the Christian gospels are the word of God do not know in what way that word has taken its present form...they assume that it was inspired as it is presented to them...” (Harper’s Magazine, Volume 63, 1881) “1882: “...I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language...I furthermore say, that King James’ Translation of the Bible is the only Divinely Inspired translation directly [in modern ages]...” (William Wash- ington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James’ Transla- tion, 1882) “1883: “...with many of them in this country the hitherto authorised English version is the inspired one...” (The Literary World, Volume 28, 1883) “1883: “...The root of the superstitious view is a gross literalism found on the mistaken doctrine of Verbal Inspiration and applied to the Authorized Version.” (Dickinson’s Theological Quarterly, Jan., 1883) “1883: “...timid conservatives...look upon the English version as the inspired Word of God...” (The Homiletic Review, Volume 7, 1883) “1883: “...to the great mass of English readers King James’s Version is virtually the inspired Word of God...” (Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, and the English Version, 1883) “1884: “Those godly, liberty-loving but self-controlled, Protestant, Americanized Englishmen of the fourth generation, had not let go their English Bible as the Inspired Word...” (F. H. Palmer, Ed- ward Payson Cowell, Two Centuries of Church History, First Congregational Church, Essex, Mass., 1884)” “1887: “And the remarkable dictum of Chillingworth*, that the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants, coupled with the grotesque idea of the verbal inspiration of the English version...” (John William Horsley, Jotting from Jail, 1887) *William Chillingworth, 1602-1644, was a controversial English churchman, who wrote The Reli- gion of Protestants, of which “The main argument is a vindication of the sole authority of the Bible in spiritual matters, and of the free right of the individual conscience to interpret it.” See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Chillingworth. The tenor of the quotation suggests that Chilling- worth’s “remarkable dictum” was still widely held at the time of the 1887 article and it appears that the writer is trying to persuade his readership to abandon it. It is said of Chillingworth that “His writings enjoyed a high popularity, particularly towards the end of the seventeenth century, after a popular, condensed edition of The Religion of Protestants appeared in 1687, edited by John Patrick. The Religion of Protestants is acutely argued, and was commended by John Locke... The gist of his argument is expressed in a single sentence: ““I am fully assured that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to, require any more of any man than this, to believe the Scripture to be God's word, and to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.”” 75 See the end of Quote 205, written before consultation of the life and works of William Chilling- worth. Ecclesiastes 12:13 comes to mind, for those who have access to “the commandments of God” 1 Co- rinthians 7:19 “in words easy to be understood” 1 Corinthians 14:9. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” “1887: “This unfaithfulness to truth is certainly not so great a sin against the light as the habit which seems to be still prevalent of treating the old authorized version alone as the ipsissima verba [i.e. very words] of inspiration...” (James Frederick McCurdy, quoted in, William Rainey Harper, The Old Testament Student, Volume 6, 1887) “1890: “That by reason the King James version of the Bible, only received as inspired and true by the Protestant religious sects, is regarded by the members of said Roman Catholic Church as contrary to the rights of conscience...” (The Weekly Wisconsin, March 22, 1890) “1893: “...up to the latter end of the present century, it practically amounted, as we have seen, to the most rigid theory of verbal inspiration – an inspiration usually attributed by the people at large, and sometimes by their ministers, to the Authorized English version...” (John James Lias, Eyre and Spottiswoode, Principles of Biblical Criticism, 1893) “1894: “There is a class of ignorant people to whom the King James version of the Bible is the inspired word of God in all its language...” (Harriette Merrick Hodge Plunkett, Josiah Gilbert Hol- land, 1894) “1897: “The Rev. Dr. Francis H. Smith of the Seventh Street Church, who was also present, said: ‘...Fifty years ago there were Christians who believed that everything about the Bible, down to the commas, was inspired...’” (The New York Times, February 16, 1897) “1897: “A remark of Jowett’s* [Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford] on the work of the [RV] committee when it appeared is perhaps worth recording here...[He stated]: ‘They seem to have for- gotten that, in a certain sense, the Authorized Version is more inspired than the original.’” (Eve- lyn Abbott, Lewis Campbell, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Jowett, 1897) *See Quote 69. “1897: “...When our fathers, as they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden* called ‘the best translation in the world’...” (Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897) *See Quote(s) 87. “1898: “...many persons now, forgetting that all English versions are merely translations from the ancient Hebrew and Greek, imagine each word and letter of the 1611 translation to be inspired by God...” (Charles Arthur Lane, Illustrated Notes on English Church History, 1898) “1898: “It is said of Bishop Lee, that he considered every word of the English Authorized Version inspired...That may seem an extravagant statement, but it represents a view held unconsciously by simple-minded, earnest, sincere Christians...” (Robert Needham Cust, Linguistic and Oriental Es- says, 1898) The above list numbers 30 quotations from different sources. Bro. Faust has listed many more. Set against the broad sweep of Bible belief since 1611 therefore, the DBS Executive Committee is a tiny minority.

76 Testimonies to the Inspiration of the AV1611 The following testimonies have been drawn from a wide variety of witnesses, not all of whom are Bible believers or even Christians. It is this author’s firm conviction that they are nevertheless all trustworthy witnesses to “the scripture of truth” Daniel 10:21 in the form of the 1611 English Holy Bible. They constitute a formidable array of adversaries for Dr Waite to overcome. His denial that the 1611 English Holy Bible is even a Holy Bible should be kept in mind as the following witness statements are read. P. 36 “Neither the DBS Executive Committee or the DBS Advisory Council will ever call the King James Bible “inspired of God,” “given by inspiration of God,” “verbally inspired,” “inspired,” or “God-breathed” at any time or in any place.” They will after they have given account at “the judgment seat of Christ” Romans 14:10. 2 Corinthians 13:1 should also be kept in mind when reading the following witness statements. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Many more than the scriptural minimum of witnesses have been listed below, the first from an un- likely source. “In all these instances the Bible means the translation authorised by King James the First…to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and wor- ships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God” – George Bernard Shaw6. Yet another distinguished witness, William Lyon Phelps7, Lampson Professor of English Literature at Yale University, said this. “We Anglo-Saxons have a better Bible than the French or Germans or the Italians or the Spanish; our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this; I have no theory to account for the so-called “inspiration of the Bible,” but I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired. “Now as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world, and as it is the most beautiful monument ever erected with the English alphabet, we ought to make the most of it, for it is an in- comparably rich inheritance, free to all who can read. This means that we ought invariably in the church and on public occasions to use the Authorized Version; all others are inferior. And, except for special purposes, it should be used exclusively in private reading. Why make constant compan- ions of the second best, when the best is available?” Contemporary English historian David Starkey8 is no supporter of Christian belief but he has said this about the 1611 Authorized Holy Bible. “The King James Version of the bible, more than any other book, formed the English language and shaped the English mind.” As indicated in Dr Waite and the Imaginary ‘Original Bible,’ Unidentified in Print, Charles Haddon Spurgeon9 made the following remarkable statements in his final address to his fellow pastors, given in April 1891. He refers to the AV1611 as “the volume of inspiration.” Spurgeon’s testimony is not without alloy, see second paragraph below but he leaves the reader in no doubt about the inspiration of the 1611 English Holy Bible. Emphases are this author’s. “OUR ARMOURY...is to me...THE BIBLE. To us Holy Scripture is as “the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.” If we want weapons we must come here for them, and here only. Whether we seek the sword of offence or the shield of defence, we must find it within the volume of inspiration. If others have any other store- house, I confess at once I have none. I have nothing else to preach when I have got through with this 77 book. Indeed, I can have no wish to preach at all if I may not continue to expound the subjects which I find in these pages. What else is worth preaching?... “Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it will be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense. How much mischief may arise out of an accidental alteration of the Word!...” No examples are given but Spurgeon continues. “We are resolved, then, to use more fully than ever what God has provided for us in this Book, for we are sure of its inspiration. Let me say that over again. WE ARE SURE OF ITS INSPIRA- TION. You will notice that attacks are frequently made as against verbal inspiration. The form chosen is a mere pretext. Verbal inspiration is the verbal form of the assault, but the attack is really aimed at inspiration itself. You will not read far in the essay before you will find that the gentle- man who started with contesting a theory of inspiration which none of us ever held, winds up by showing his hand, and that hand wages war with inspiration itself. There is the true point. We care little for any theory of inspiration: in fact, we have none. To us the plenary verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture is fact, and not hypothesis. It is a pity to theorize upon a subject which is deeply mysterious, and makes a demand upon faith rather than fancy. Believe in the inspiration of Scrip- ture, and believe it in the most intense sense. You will not believe in a truer and fuller inspiration than really exists. No one is likely to err in that direction, even if error be possible. If you adopt theories which pare off a portion here, and deny authority to a passage there, you will at last have no inspiration left, worthy of the name.” Spurgeon was no doubt denouncing the RV reading of 2 Timothy 3:16, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching...” that opens the door to uninspired scripture (which Dr Waite sheared off its hinges with his denunciation of the entire AV1611 as emphatically not “given by inspiration of God”) but note that he still believed in the inspiration of “this Book,” his fixation with “the original” notwithstanding. Spurgeon10 also said this of the 1611 English Holy Bible, this author’s emphases. “The Bible is God’s word, and when I see it, I seem to hear a voice saying, ‘I am the Book of God, man, read me; I am God’s writing: open my leaves, for I was penned by God’...I plead with you, I beg of you, respect your Bibles, and search them out. Go home and read your Bibles...O Book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then I will bow before thee, thou Book of vast authority! For He has written this Book Himself...let us love it, let us count it more precious than fine gold!” Dr Scrivener11 has this interesting observation, this author’s emphases. “Yet John Seldon, who was twenty-seven years old in 1611, and must have had means of information not open to us, is represented in his Table Talk (p. 6) as speaking thus: “The translation in King James’ time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue – as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downes” [Regius Professor of Greek, 1585-1625]. He adds moreover this interesting piece of information, to whatever part of the work it may apply: “Then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French [Olivetan, 1535, The Pastors, 1588], Spanish [Pinel 1553, De Reyna 1569, the Valencia Bible of 1478 revised by De Valera 1602], Italian [Bruccioli 1532?, or more probably Diodati 1607], &c. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on.”” This procedure could be perceived as “the plenary verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture” in the form of the AV1611. As 2 Samuel 23:2 states, “The spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was upon my tongue.” Veteran biblical researcher and translator David Norris12 reaches this conclusion about the 1611 Eng- lish Holy Bible, this author’s emphases. 78 “By faith we accept the Bible as [the] Word of God, equally it is by faith in [the] promises of God that we believe that the Bible we now have in our possession to be word for word the inspired and inerrant word of God. In that the Authorized Version in the providence of God is a ‘correct’ and faithful translation, we deem it not to be less the inspired Word of God than the divine originals.” Dr Ruckman13 makes this observation about the man who was arguably England’s greatest revival preacher and soul-winner. “Nearly all the historians agree that John Wesley was a great preacher and that he was the prime instrument in turning the English nation from a bloody revolution similar to the terrible catastrophe that befell Catholic France (1789-1790). But having noted this, the writers all contract “typewriter paralysis”...and fail to notice HOW John Wesley accomplished this...You may as well face it: John Wesley saved England from a revolution by street preaching from a King James 1611 Authorized Version... “Wesley’s life and preaching were ruled by one Book, even though he translated some on his own. That one Book was his final authority in all matters of faith, preaching, doctrine and practice...” The distinguished church historian the Rev J.C. Ryle14 writes as follows about the 18th century reviv- als that God brought about in the British Isles through the ministries of Whitfield, Wesley and others. “My object in drawing up these papers was to bring before the public in a comprehensive form the lives, characters, and work of the leading ministers by whose agency God was pleased to revive Christianity in England a hundred years ago...I thought that the Church and the world ought to know something more than they seem to know about such men as Whitefield, Wesley, Romaine, Rowlands, Grimshaw, Berridge, Venn, Toplady, Hervey, Walker and Fletcher...” Ryle describes how God enabled these men to effect revival, his emphasis, citing in the final statement quoted Wesley’s preface to his volume of sermons. “I believe firmly that, excepting Luther and his Continental contemporaries and our own martyred Reformers, the world has seen no such men since the days of the apostles. I believe there have been none who have preached so much clear scriptural truth, none who have lived such lives, none who have shown such courage in Christ’s service, none who have suffered so much for the truth, none who have done so much good. If any can name better men, he knows more than I do... “The spiritual reformers of the last century taught constantly the sufficiency and supremacy of Ho- ly Scripture. The Bible, whole and unmutilated, was their sole rule of faith and practice. They accepted all its statements without question or dispute. They knew nothing of any part of Scripture being uninspired. They never allowed that man has any “verifying faculty” within him, by which Scripture statements may be weighed, rejected or received. They never flinched from asserting that there can be no error in the Word of God; and that when we cannot understand or reconcile some part of its contents, the fault is in the interpreter and not in the text. In all their preaching they were eminently men of one book. To that book they were content to pin their faith, and by it to stand or fall. This was one grand characteristic of their preaching. They honoured, they loved, they rever- enced the Bible.” ““I want to know one thing – the way to heaven – how to land safe on that happy shore. God Him- self has condescended to teach the way; for this very end He came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. Oh, give me that book! At any price give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be a man of one book.”” It would be easy to answer the question “Which Bible?” in this context. Some critics would com- plain that Ryle’s statement is misleading because Wesley compiled his own New Testament. See Dr Ruckman’s comment above and this author’s earlier work15 for an answer to this objection. God ignored Wesley’s translation but blessed his ministry when he met the conditions Ryle outlined above. The Bible believer should take careful note of Psalm 138:2, therefore. “For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” 79 Appendix 3 – The 1611 Holy Bible and the USA See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus Bible Critic Rick Norris pp 2-3. “They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron; they are all corrupters” Jeremiah 6:28. See further www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/version- comparison.php AV1611 Authority – Absolute. This item establishes that the 1611 Holy Bible is the over-arching authority in the USA as well as in the UK as the founding fathers of the USA clearly recognised as even the secular source Wikipedia notes and as Rick Norris ought to have had the grace to acknowledge. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Inaugural_Bible emphases in article The George Washington Inaugural Bible is Washington’s Inauguration the book that was sworn upon by George Washington when he took office as the first President of the United States. The Bible itself has subsequently been used in the inauguration ceremonies of several other U.S. presidents...The Bible is the King James Version, complete with the Apocrypha and elaborately supplemented with the historical, astronomical and legal data of that period. In addition note this citation from www.biblebelievers.com/Hoggard_KJV_Code.html The King James Code by Michael W. Hoggard, author’s emphasis. It was the King James Bible that accompanied the Puritan leader John Winthrop and 700 settlers who came to the New World in 1630. It was the King James Bible that was used to establish the first churches in America. It was the King James Bible that was used to establish the first civil govern- ments in the Colonies. It was the King James Bible that led those brave Patriots in rebellion against the tyranny of King George. It was the King James Bible that was the basis of our Great Law, the Constitution of the United States. It was the King James Bible that our first President, George Washington, laid his hand upon, to swear an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. It was open to Deuteronomy 28. (read it to find out why). It was the King James Bible that used to be taught in our public schools. It was the King James Bible that literally millions of Americans learned how to read and write with. It was the King James Bible that was the centerpiece of the common American home for hundreds of years. It is still the King James Bible that succeeding presidents lay their hand upon to swear the same oath. It is the King James Bible that many of our citizens have sworn upon to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is the King James Bible that is distributed by the millions every year, free of charge, to military personnel, chap- lains, prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels and motels, and schools all across this land...This most sacred of all books was intended to be God’s true shining light for all English speaking peoples all over the world. “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible” – George Washington Melvyn Bragg notes in The Book of Books - The Radical Impact of the King James Bible 1611-2011 p 63 that the founding fathers of the USA perceived the words of the 1611 Holy Bible to be holy. Bragg adds that the fathers knew that the Old Testament had been written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek but they believed their English translation to be the Book of Books and the su- preme authority in all matters. If Rick Norris, as a US citizen, had any genuine humility, he would follow Paul’s exhortation to Timothy with respect to the above disclosures. “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all” 1 Timothy 4:15. 80 Appendix 4 The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy – re: The King James Only Controversy by James White Summary This book by James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Phoenix, Arizona, attempts to show that believing the Authorised 1611 King James Bible to be the pure words of God and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is wrong, because: • There is no ‘conspiracy’ behind the modern versions against the AV1611 • The Greek texts underlying the modern translations have not been corrupted • Modern scholarship that compiled these texts is entirely trustworthy • The AV1611 is the result of human effort and contains errors • The modern translations often yield superior readings to the AV1611 • The modern translations do not attack the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This review will show that White is wrong in all six of the above respects and that his book is an exercise in dissimulation from start to finish. Summary answers to White’s essential postulates are as follows: No Conspiracy? John Burgon, Dean of Chichester and exhaustive researcher into the Text of the New Testament, pin- pointed the satanic conspiracy against the holy scriptures as follows: “Vanquished by THE WORD Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against the WORD written. Hence...the extraordinary fate which befell certain early transcripts of the Gos- pel…Corrupting influences…were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years after the death of St John the Divine.” Uncorrupted Greek Texts? Of the early Greek manuscripts that underlie the departures of the modern versions from the Author- ised Version, Burgon, who collated them, said this: “The five Old Uncials’ (Aleph A B C D) falsify the Lord’s Prayer as given by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little do they agree among themselves, that they throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from the Traditional Text…and their grand point of union is no less than an omission of an article. Such is their eccentric tendency, that in respect of thirty- two out of the whole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence.” Modern Scholarship Trustworthy? The departures of the modern versions from the Authorised Version were orchestrated mainly by Cambridge academics Westcott and Hort. Of their ‘scholarship,’ Burgon stated: “My contention is, - NOT that the Theory of Drs Westcott and Hort rests on an INSECURE foundation, but, that it rests on NO FOUNDATION AT ALL.” A Modern Scholar Speaks Of White’s remaining postulates, this is the verdict of Dr Frank Logsdon, principal scholar behind the NASV, New American Standard Version, match mate to the NIV: “I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard…you can say the Au- thorized Version is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!” Amen!

81 Introduction The book The King James Only Controversy by James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Phoenix, Arizona, attempts to show that anyone who believes the Authorised 1611 King James Bible to be the pure words of God and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is mistaken, on the grounds that: • There is no ‘conspiracy’ behind the modern versions against the AV1611 • The Greek texts underlying the modern translations have not been corrupted • Modern scholarship that compiled these texts is entirely trustworthy • The AV1611 is the result of human effort and contains errors • The modern translations often yield superior readings to the AV1611 • The modern translations do not attack the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This review will show that White is wrong in all six of the above respects and that his book is an exercise in dissimulation from start to finish. In 1996, a year after White’s book appeared, Dr Peter S. Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute in Florida, published a nearly five-hundred page refutation of The King James Only Controversy that James White has never answered16. About the time of his book’s publication, James White challenged Dr Ruckman to a debate claiming he could find seven errors in the Authorised Version. As the one challenged, Dr Ruckman sent White notification of the time and place of the debate and a copy of a Gideon’s AV1611 Bible from which he stipulated that White prove the seven errors that he alleged17. White reneged on the debate and has never issued Dr Ruckman with a fresh challenge. The BBB printed White’s seven alleged errors and Dr Ruckman discussed them in detail. They are Luke 2:22, Acts 5:30, Hebrews 10:23, Jeremiah 34:16, Revelation 16:5, Acts 19:37 and 1 John 5:7. This work will address these verses either where White cites them first, e.g. in Chapter 4, with respect to Jere- miah 34:16, Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5, 1 John 5:7 or in Chapter 5, where he attacks Dr Ruckman. Other shortcomings that White alleges the AV1611 contains, in response to his six postulates above will also be discussed subsequently but White’s unwillingness to follow through on his challenge to Dr Ruckman does call into question his ability to substantiate the bold assertion he makes that the AV1611 is “a great, yet imperfect translation of the Bible.”18 p vii The above statement raises yet another question. What, according to White, is ‘the Bible?’ Nowhere in two hundred and seventy-one pages does White identify any single volume between two covers as ‘the Bible.’ White regards even the modern bibles as merely translations. And yet he asserts that “We must be clear on why we believe the Bible to be God’s Word,”18 p vi stressing the importance of “the Bible…God’s word [requiring] us to be students of that book,” “the entirety of the Bible,” “the highest standard of truth,” “to be men and women of truth and honesty,” “Scripture…God’s revealed truth,” “Christians are to be lovers of truth,” “A true Christian scholar is a lover of truth”18 pp vi, vii, viii, 13, 95, 217, 247. But nowhere in his book does he specify what “God’s Word” is, in a form that is accessible today, though he mentions various versions, Greek editions and manuscript sources. This is surely a point of contention with respect to The King James Only Controversy. Yet White insists that it is the KJV Only advocates – anyone who believes that the Authorised Ver- sion is the Bible and God’s pure word – who cause disruption and contention in the local church and are responsible for the destruction of many churches, though none that White can actually identify18 pp iv-v. Nevertheless, bible believers should be concerned over the seriousness of these charges, together with White’s main postulates above and prepared to answer them. Thoroughgoing responses already 82 exist19, 20, 21, 22 in this respect, in addition to Dr Ruckman’s detailed work but nothing will be lost by additional study, drawing as appropriate on these earlier analyses, for as Solomon said: “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” Proverbs 11:14. For simplicity, this review will follow the chapters of White’s book in sequence, highlighting his main postulates as appropriate and dealing with his criticisms of the Holy Bible as they arise. Where White has criticised particular passages of scripture as found in the AV1611 with respect to other alternatives, these are listed in the Appendix, together with the equivalent renderings of the NIV*, a translation that White evidently favours over the AV1611 (most of the time) and those of certain translations that as a self-professed “biblical conservative” White would most likely not recommend**18 p vii. These are the JB, the Jerusalem Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, Challoner’s Revision, 1749-1752 of the Roman Catholic DR, Douay-Rheims Version, the JR, Jesuit Rheims 1582 New Testament** and the NWT, the New World Translation of the Watchtower heresy. *1984 Edition, www.studylight.org/. The 2011 NIV, biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/#summary, makes minor word changes in Luke 2:22, Acts 5:30 that do not affect the responses that follow. **Of necessity an inference, in that White fails to define a “biblical conservative”. However, he insists that – with the help various translations - he has18 p 131 “written entire books defending salvation by grace through faith alone.” This statement indicates that White would not support bibles compiled by groups that deny this doctrine. ***As available from the internet, www.hailandfire.com/1582RheimsTestament/index.shtml An interesting result emerges from the comparison. White levels criticisms at 241 passages of scripture as they stand in the AV1611, 252 verses in total, of which 24 verses are from the Old Testament. Of that selection, the NIV stands with the AV1611 in only 9 of the 241 passages, or in 4% of the total. However, it lines up against the AV1611 with the JR, DR, JB and NWT in 28% of the passages, with the JB and NWT in 70% of the passages and with one or more of the JR, DR, JB, NWT in 89% of the passages that White mentions. So according to White and regardless of his profession of “defending salvation by grace through faith alone,” given that he supports the modern renderings of these passages, at least seven times out of ten where ‘disputed’ passages arise, God gave His words to Rome and Watchtower but not to faithful bible believers who took the AV1611 “unto the uttermost part of the earth” Acts 1:8. It is interesting to see what company a latter-day “biblical conservative” is prepared to keep but the Authorised Version does tend to unite former foes in ecumenical oneness, just as its Author did. “And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves” Luke 23:12. Unlike James White, this reviewer not only has ‘the Bible’ but possesses the Book in its ‘entirety’ and is aware of the testimony of centuries of jurisprudence in the English-speaking nations to the effect that the Authorised Holy Bible is indeed ‘the highest standard of truth.’ James White has not produced any that is higher. This review will therefore not hesitate to cite the Authorised Holy Bible as appropriate in its own vindication. This is not “circular reasoning” of which White repeatedly accuses bible believers18 pp vii, 85, n 34, 92, 112, 114, 126, 128, 155, 156, 167, 217, 219, 249 but scriptural reasoning, in the light of Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthian Church “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” 1 Corin- thians 2:13. Extracts from The ‘Whitewash’ Conspiracy follow, with respect to White’s supposed seven errors in the 1611 Holy Bible. 83 White’s 7 ‘KJB Errors’ - Luke 2:22, Acts 5:30, Hebrews 10:23, Jeremiah 34:16, Revelation 16:5, Acts 19:37 and 1 John 5:7 From Chapter 4 – “Putting It Together” Luke 2:22 The AV1611 reading “her purification” in Luke 2:22 instead of “their purification” has support23* pp 68-69, p 86, 24 pp 150ff from 5-6 Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin but the AV1611 reading is at variance with most of the manuscript and version witnesses. *See also www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av- only/ “O Biblios” – The Book p 50 of the uploaded file. Nevertheless, as Dr Holland explains, “Contextually, the reading must stand as reflected in the KJV. Under the Levitical Law [Leviticus 12:2-4] a woman was considered unclean after giving birth and needed purification.” Dr Moorman25 states, his emphasis, “The Law in Leviticus required purification only for the mother – not the child, not the father…Despite the manuscript support for “their purification” the reading is clearly wrong. It contradicts scripture and brings dishonour to Christ.” Dr Moorman’s comment highlights the fact – heavily reinforced by Dr Mrs Riplinger’s work26 – that the manuscripts, versions, patristic quotations and printed editions in the original languages are witnesses to the text of scripture that usually support the AV1611 against the modern versions. But these witnesses – such as are extant and have been collated to date – are not infallible. The 1611 Au- thorised Holy Bible is infallible. And what James White and others contemptuously refer to as “King James Onlyism” is really “King James AUTHORITARIANISM.” This is what White, Kutilek, ‘our critic’ and the rest can’t or couldn’t stomach. It punctures their egos and threatens their incomes. Dr Ruckman’s comments17 on Luke 2:22 are as follows. “(Luke 2:22)…”Her purification” is an “error” according to all Alexandrians for the Greek texts say…“their purification.” Thus the NIV and NASV are correct in saying “THEIR purification.” The only thing wrong with this is that it is a lie. Joseph didn’t need any purification according to the Biblical source for the Biblical quotation (Leviticus 12). Only the WOMAN needed to be purified; look at it… “So here is a case where the AV translators saw a Biblical problem that White didn’t see, or didn’t want to see, because he was dead set on FORCING THE BIBLE TO CONTRADICT ITSELF. If he could use the Greek to do this with he would do it; he did it. If the AV is in “error,” then the NIV and NASV have ten times as bad an error, for they made a false document out of the “Law of Mo- ses.”” In sum, the bible believer can have “absolute certainty”18 p 95 in following the AV1611 for all the verses that White18 p 68 lists above from Dr Hills’s book, regardless of the variations in the TR. How the modern bible critic like James White sorts out the variant readings by a process of “individual responsibility”18 p 95 is problematic.

84 Jeremiah 34:16 Dr Ruckman has some explanatory comments about Jeremiah 34:1617. See below. They are sufficient for a bible believer - though not for James White. He insists that because the different readings are still found in different editions of the AV1611, “The person who does not make the KJV the absolute authority…has an easy answer; look at the Hebrew text and find out…[and] the Hebrew is plural here…the correct translation is the plural “you,” i.e. “ye,” which is, in fact, the reading found in the AV 1611.” But only because “the Hebrew is plural here.” According to White “if we make the KJV the starting point (and this is exactly what radical KJV Onlyism does) there is simply no way of determining the correct text of Jeremiah 34:16.” He declares18 p 81 the reading “he” to be the error of “a later Eng- lish stylist [that]…somehow got past the final editing process and into print” but expresses his dis- may on discovering that the NKJV also says “he” in Jeremiah 34:16. However, after consultation with Dr James Price of the NKJV committee, White18 p 89 assures his readers that “Future editions of the NKJV will change the pronoun back to “you.”” Dr Ruckman responds as follows, his emphasis. “White is worried about the fact that the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the AV don’t match word for word…[White] even consulted Dr James Price (on the NKJV committee…) to get back to the “original text”…They both agreed the text should say “ye” instead of “he””… “Both apostates (Price and White) insisted that the plural “ye” should be maintained because “he,” being singular, was false. Whereupon they change the “ye”…to “you.” But “you” in [modern] English, is not plural necessarily…[Greek and Hebrew] both have a plural form of “you” [but] Modern English does not preserve this distinction… “BOTH variants in the AV (Jer. 34:16) were correct grammatically, if one deals with the English text or the Hebrew text. They (“ye” in the Cambridge) were being addressed as a group (plural, Jer. 34:13; as in Deut. 29), but the address was aimed at individual men (“he” in the Oxford edition), within the group. Either word would have been absolutely correct according to that great critic of critics, the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13)… “No “editor” let anything slip by. White and Price think they are careful “editors.” The translators chose two different ways of saying the same thing, and both of them accorded with the context of the verse, and both of them told the TRUTH. But because they weren’t identical (Cambridge “ye,” Ox- ford “he”) the old self-righteous, practical atheists – no Alexandrian has any higher authority than his opinions or the opinions of his friends – claimed “error.”” And once again, White’s claim is shown to be false. “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong” Job 5:13. White refers to Dr Scrivener’s collation of changes in the various editions of the AV1611 but he fails to mention the dates of the changes. Perhaps this is because, like the above examples, they were among the 72% of all textual variants that were finalised under the ministry of Drs Bois and Ward by 1638. Such an early date for the resolution of almost three-quarters of all such variants – and27 p 170 “Scrivener alludes to less than two hundred as noteworthy of mention” – effectively cripples White’s insistence18 p 79 that “these changes…represent a sticky problem for the radical proponent of KJV Onlyism…when the KJV is made the absolute standard…once a person has invested the English translation with inspiration itself.” Dr Grady27 pp 227-8 also refutes White’s half-truth18 p 78 that “Editions with changes in the text came out as soon as 1612, [others] in 1613…1616, 1629, and 1638” and his allusion to William Kil- burne’s claim in 1659 that “20,000 errors had crept into six different editions [of the AV1611] in the 1650s.” Dr Grady states. 85 “When all else fails, detractors of the King James Bible will invariably ask their despised opponents, “WHICH Authorised Version do you believe, the 1611, 1613, 1767 or perhaps the 1850?” And while their bewildered victims are pondering this troublesome innuendo (analogous to such nonsense as “Have you quit beating your wife lately?”), they are subjected to an array of staggering statistics. Citing the Evangelical scholar Jack Lewis [also cited by White], Keylock quotes him as stating: ““Few people realise, for example, that thousands of textual errors have been found in the KJV. As early as 1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in six KJV editions.” “Reckless statements such as Lewis’ are incredibly misleading as the extent of these so-called “errors” are never explained to be primarily lithographical (printing) and orthographical (spelling) in nature. In 1611, the art of printing was an occupation of the utmost drudgery. With every character being set by hand, a multitude of typographical errors was to be expected... “In addition to printing flaws, there was a continual change in spelling for which to care. Lewis did not inform his readers that there was no such thing as proper spelling in the seventeenth century... “A significant portion of these twenty thousand “textual errors” were in reality nothing more than changing “darke” to “dark” or “rann” to “ran.” Who but a Nicolataine priest [like James White] would categorize as serious revisions the normal follow-up corrections of mistakes at the press? “It is impossible to overstate the duplicity of such critics who would weaken the faith of some with their preposterous reports of tens of thousands of errors in the Authorised Version...In his Appendix A (List of wrong readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions) of his informative work, The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Repre- sentatives, Scrivener catalogued but a fraction of the inflated figures of modern scholarship. “Excluding marginal alterations and Apocrypha citings, this author has personally reviewed pages 147-194 and counted LESS THAN 800 CORRECTIONS. And even this figure is misleading when you consider that many of the instances were repetitious in nature. (Six such changes involved the corrected spelling of “Nathanael” from the 1611’s “Nathaneel” in John 1:45-49 and 21:2). “Whereas Geisler and Nix cited Goodspeed’s denouncing of Dr. Blayney’s 1769 Oxford edition for deviating from the Authorised Version in “at least 75,000 details,” Scrivener alludes to less than two hundred as noteworthy of mention.” The “sticky problem” exists only in the convoluted thought processes of James White and his fellow travellers. Clearly God worked with faithful, bible-believing editors such as Drs Bois and Ward to refine his Book just as He had summoned the scholarly King’s men to translate it in the first place. God was the Principal Editor as well as the Principal Author of the 1611 Authorised Holy Bible and, as indicated earlier, the Book’s own testimony of itself, which White denies, is that it is “all scripture…given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16a.

86 Revelation 16:5 White18 pp 63-6 alludes to [Revelation 16:5], together with a unique reading of Beza’s Greek Text in Revelation 16:5 preserved in the AV1611 as “and shalt be.” “Beza did introduce…“conjectural emendations,” that is, changes made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts. A few of these changes made it into the KJV, the most famous being Revelation 16:5, “O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be” rather than the actual reading, “who art and who wast, O Holy one.” Dr Ruckman has some comments on Revelation 16:5, as follows... “Since White wrote his book to justify the sins of the NIV and NASV committees, do you think he was actually worried about “shalt be” in Revelation 16:5? You see the “and” in the verse was found in an early papyrus (P 47): “and…” what? The NIV and the NASV and Nestle and Aland and Hort had to get rid of the earliest papyrus this time. It was an embarrassment because it messed up their sentence. If they had followed their profession (“the oldest and best, etc.) they would have had to give you this: “Righteous art Thou, the Being One, AND the One who was, AND the Holy One.” That is one awkward, cockeyed clause, so the “and” (“kai” in the papyrus) had to be dropped. Something originally followed that last “and,” and it certainly was not “the Holy One.” Undoubtedly, “in the original” (a famous, worn-out, Alexandrian cliché) it read “the One being, and the One who was, AND the One who shall be… “Now, that is a conjecture, but it is a conjecture in the light of early Greek manuscript evidence that was discarded by Mr Nestle and Mr White. He and his buddies had to violate their own standards to get rid of the AV reading. Standard Operating Procedure in the Cult… “They never waste their time on any text like they waste it on the English text of 1611. That is the one they hate… “For those of you who think I am “overstepping” myself: Who inserted “nailed” into Acts 2:23 without being able to find one nail within one hundred verses of the verse (NASV)? There is not one Greek manuscript extant that says “nail” or “nails” or “nailing” or “nailed.” But it doesn’t bother any Alexandrian except in Revelation 16:5 in an AV. Remarkable, isn’t it?… “We would judge White’s extant Greek texts on Revelation 16:5 to be defective, in regards to “shalt be,” and this is apparent from the rejected “kai” in Papyrus 47. Why trade in absolute truth for a defective Greek manuscript? The truth is the Lord (vs. 5) had THREE lives (confirmed in Revelation 1:8, 8:8) and the “kai” (and) is found in both those passages. Someone messed with Revelation 16:5 in the Greek texts. It wasn’t the AV translators…” White is clearly being inconsistent in not highlighting the insertion of “nailed” in Acts 2:23, while complaining about Revelation 16:5 in the AV1611. Moorman28 p 152 notes that P47 contains the reading “the Holy One” but he adds29 p 102 that “The KJV reading is in harmony with the four other places in Revelation where this phrase is found, 1:4, 8, 4:8, 11:17. Indeed Christ is the Holy One, but in the Scriptures of the Apostle John the title is found only once (1 John 2:20), and there, a totally different Greek word is used. The Preface to the Au- thorised Version reads: “With the former translations diligently compared and revised.” The translators must have felt there was good reason to insert these words though they ran counter to much external evidence. They obviously did not believe the charge made today that Beza inserted it on the basis of “conjectural emendation.” They knew that they were translating the Word of God, and so do we. The logic of faith should lead us to see God’s guiding providence in a passage such as this.” The above would satisfy a bible believer with respect to Revelation 16:5 in the AV1611, though not James White.

87 1 John 5:7 White then directs his criticisms18 pp 60-62 towards 1 John 5:7. He seeks to undermine the authenticity of this verse mainly by reference to Erasmus’s doubts about the passage. He states that “[1 John 5:7]…was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions…he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase…the manuscript is highly suspect, in that it was probably was created in the house of Grey Friars, whose provincial, was an old enemy of Erasmus…we have a phrase that is simply not a part of the ancient Greek manuscripts of John’s first epistle. The few manuscripts that contain the phrase are very recent, and half of those have the reading written in the margin. The phrase appears only in certain of the Latin versions. There are, quite literally, hundreds of readings in the New Testament manuscript tradition that have better arguments in their favor that are rejected by both Erasmus and the KJV translators. And yet this passage is ferociously defended by KJV advocates to this day…If indeed the Comma was a part of the original writing of the apostle John, we are forced to conclude that entire passages, rich in theological meaning, can disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition without leaving a single trace…the defenders of the KJV…[present] a theory regarding the NT text that in reality, de- stroys the very basis upon which we can have confidence that we still have the original words of Paul or John…in their rush to defend what is obviously a later addition to the text that entered into the KJV by unusual circumstances.” Again, White neglects to mention where “the original words of Paul or John” can be found as the preserved words of God between two covers. He adds a note18 pp 85-86 with respect to “the grammatical argument that posits a problem in the masculine form of “three” and the genders of Spirit, blood and water” and insists that “This is not a very major problem, as “three” almost always appears in the NT as masculine when used as a substantive…this is more stylistic than anything else.” First, White has demonstrated his contempt for, or wilful ignorance of, faithful bible believers such as the Waldenses, whose pre-1611 Latin Bibles, the texts of which date from as early as 157 AD, furnished “unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the cele- brated text of the heavenly witnesses [1 John 5:7] was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate.” See Wilkinson’s citation of Nolan, under Catholic Corrupters and Centuries of Warfare. (See Wilkinson, kjv.benabraham.com/html/chapter-2.html) How can a text of scripture preserved by “a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church,” possibly be a late addition? 157 AD is not late! Dr Mrs Riplinger notes26 p 946 that “The world’s leading Erasmusian scholar, Henk de Jonge, finds Bruce Metzger, James White, and others sorely wrong in their appraisal of Erasmus. He states, in his “Erasmus and the Comma Johannem,” that White’s assertions are patently wrong.” The evidence for 1 John 5:7 as scripture has been summarised elsewhere23 pp 88-89 319ff but extracts follow, together with citations from other researchers. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ “O Biblios” – The Book pp 63-64, 249ff. Dr Holland19 states in refutation of White’s disinformation about 1 John 5:7 that “Another example of false information is White’s treatment of the “Johannine comma” (1 John 5:7). “If indeed the Comma was a part of the original writing of the apostle John, we are forced to conclude that entire passages, rich in theological meaning, can disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition without leaving a single trace” (p. 62).” Without a trace? White thinks it was added in the fifteenth century. Yet, it was quoted by Cyprian in 250 AD, used by Cassiodorus in the early sixth century, and found in the old Latin manuscript of the fifth century and in the Speculum.” He has this further detailed study24 pp 163ff as follows. Dr Holland’s book contains reference citations that have been omitted here. 88 Note that Dr Holland in his overview of 1 John 5:7 does not accept White’s assertion that the grammatical difficulty arising from omission of the verse “is not a very major problem.” “1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - “These Three Are One” ““For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” “The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity. “The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelfth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is commonplace throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original. “While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome’s original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states: ““In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.” “Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Ho- ly Spirit, ‘And these three are one’.” Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma: ““As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” “Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: “And John the Evangelist says…‘And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one’.” Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Com- ma. Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses. 89 “Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as “the Word.” If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use “Son” instead of “Word.” However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuine- ness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13- 14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly. “The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become im- proper Greek grammar. “Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John: ““(he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves dis- claim in the case of Deity?” “It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Read- ings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Arti- cle, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. “While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Tradi- tional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.” David Cloud supports 1 John 5:7 as follows21 Part 3. “WHITE MAKES AN ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED LACK OF SUPPORT FOR 1 JOHN 5:7. “White largely ignores the powerful arguments which have led Bible believers to accept 1 John 5:7 as Scripture for centuries on end. 1 John 5:7 stood unchallenged in the English Bible for a full six hundred years. It was in the first English Bible by John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testa- ment of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Au- thorized Version of 1611. It did not disappear from a standard English Bible until the English Re- vised of 1881 omitted it. “James White would probably reply, “Sure, Wycliffe translated from the Latin Bible and 1 John 5:7 has always been in the Latin Bible. It was an accident of history. It doesn’t mean anything.” I believe this history means a lot. The fact that the most widely used Bibles through the centuries con- 90 tained 1 John 5:7 speaks volumes to me. It tells me that God had His hand in this, that it is preserved Scripture. Were the countless preachers, theologians, church and denominational leaders, editors, translators, etc., who accepted the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 of these English Bi- bles through all these long centuries really so ignorant? What a proud generation we have today! White is correct when he states that long tradition in itself is not proof that something is true, but he ignores the fact that long tradition CAN BE an evidence that something is true, and if that tradition lines up with the Word of God, it is not to be discarded. “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28). There are many reasons for believing 1 John 5:7 was penned by the Apostle John under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but White’s readers are not informed of this fact and are left with an insufficient presentation of this issue. “White ignores the scholarly defense of the Trinitarian passage published by Frederick Nolan in 1815 - An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. This 576-page volume has been reprinted by Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. The Southern Presbyterian Review for April 1871, described Nolan’s book as “a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning.” “White ignores the Christ-honoring scholarship of 19th-century Presbyterian scholar Robert Dab- ney, who wrote in defense of the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Vol. 1, p. 350-390; Edin- burgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1891, reprinted 1967). Dabney was offered the editorship of a newspaper at age 22 and it was said of him that no man his age in the U.S. was superior as a writer. He taught at Union Theological Seminary from 1853 to 1883 and pastored the College Church during most of those years. He contributed to a number of publications, including the Central Presbyterian, the Presbyterian Critic, and the Southern Presbyterian. His last years were spent with the Austin School of Theology in Texas, a university he co-founded. A.A. Hodge called Dabney “the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world,” and General Stonewall Jackson referred to him as the most efficient officer he knew (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, cover jacket, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977 edition of the 1903 original). “White ignores the fact that it was particularly the Unitarians and German modernists who fought viciously against the Trinitarian passage in the King James Bible. For example, in my library is a copy of Ezra Abbot’s Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7 (New York: James Miller, 1866). Abbot, Harvard University Divinity School professor, was one of at least three Christ-denying Unitarians who worked on the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Abbot was a close friend of Philip Schaff, head of the ASV project, and was spoken of warmly in the introduction to Schaff’s history. According to the testimony of the revisers themselves, the Unitarian Abbot wielded great influence on the translation. Consider the following statement by Matthew Riddle, a member of the ASV translation committee: ““Dr. Ezra Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and HIS OPINIONS USUALLY PRE- VAILED WHEN QUESTIONS OF TEXT WERE DEBATED. Dr. Ezra Abbot presented a very able paper on the last clause of Romans 9:5, arguing that it was a doxology to God, and not to be referred to Christ. His view of the punctuation, which is held by many modern scholars, appears in the margin of the American Appendix, and is more defensible than the margin of the English Com- pany. Acts 20:28. ‘The Lord’ is placed in the text, with this margin: ‘Some ancient authorities, including the two oldest manuscripts, read God.’…Dr. Abbot wrote a long article in favor of the reading [which removes ‘God’ from the text]” (Matthew Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testa- ment, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 1908, pp. 30, 39, 83). “Matthew Riddle’s testimony in this regard is very important as he was one of the most influential members of the American Standard Version committee and one of the few members who survived to 91 see the translation printed. The ASV was the first influential Bible published in America to drop 1 John 5:7 from the text, AND IT DID SO UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A UNITARIAN. White sees no significance to these matters. I see great significance. White, as do most modern version defenders, ignores the direct Unitarian connection with modern textual criticism and with the textual changes pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ which appear in the modern versions. We have exposed this connection extensively in our book Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy. “White also ignores the scholarly articles defending 1 John 5:7 which have been published since the late 1800s by the Trinitarian Bible Society. He also ignores the excellent defense of 1 John 5:7-8 by Jack Moorman in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse. White also ignores the excellent reply given in 1980 by Dr. Thomas Strouse to D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, in which Dr. Strouse provides an overview of the arguments supporting the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Received Text. Dr. Strouse (Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University) is Chairman of the Department of Theology, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary (717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464. 888-482-2287, [email protected]). “White also ignores the landmark work of Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Publications, 1855 “A” Ave. #4, Douglas, AZ 85607). It is possible, of course, that he had not seen Maynard’s book prior to the publication of The King James Bible Con- troversy. Maynard’s book basically summarizes the long-standing defense of 1 John 5:7-8 as it exists in the King James Bible, but White pretends that there is no reasonable defense of the Trinitari- an passage.” Dr Moorman29 pp 115ff summarises the reasons why bible critics reject 1 John 5:7 and cites Dabney’s evaluation of the verse as follows. See also this author’s earlier work23 pp 322ff. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ “O Biblios” – The Book p 251. ““The masculine article, numeral and participle HOI TREIS MARTUROUNTES, are made to agree directly with three neuters, an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. If the disputed words are allowed to remain, they agree with two masculines and one neuter noun HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA and, according to the rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines TREIS MARTUROUNTES in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters PNEUMA, HUDOR, and HAIMA may be accounted for by the power of attraction, well known in Greek syntax…If the words [of verse 7] are omitted, the concluding words at the end of verse 8 contain an unintelligible reference. The Greek words KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN mean precisely - “and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One.” If the 7th verse is omitted “that One” does not appear.”” Moorman adds that “Gaussen says it best: “Remove it, [verse 7] and the grammar becomes incoher- ent.”” White may disagree but the sources that Moorman quotes provide much more detailed analyses than White does. As indicated, Moorman also gives a detailed analysis of support for 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the AV1611 – see Holland and Cloud above - and refers the reader to Dr Hills30 pp 209ff for his explanation of why the verse was possibly omitted from the majority of Greek manuscripts. Dr Hills refers to Sabellius’s heresy of the 3rd century, which taught that the three Persons of the Godhead were not distinct Persons but identical. Hills concludes that the statement “these three are one” in 1 John 5:7 “no doubt seemed to [orthodox Christians] to teach the Sabellian view…and if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading [by accidental omission], it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine Comma as a heretical addition.” 92 Dr Hills states that “In the Greek-speaking East…the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe,” resulting in the loss of 1 John 5:7 from most Greek manuscripts, whereas it was nevertheless preserved in the Latin-speaking West “where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great.” White attempts to undermine Dr Hills’s analysis of support for 1 John 5:7 as follows18 p 85. “Hills is one of the few who seem to have thought through the matter to its conclusion, though he is not quick to bring out the fact that this means the Greek manuscript tradition can be so corrupted as to lose, without trace, an entire reading.” White’s contempt for bible believers emerges once again, where he states in this note “Most who defend [1 John 5:7] do so by merely repeating the maxim that the KJV is the Word of God, and hence the passage should be there (i.e. they use completely circular reasoning).” Again, White ignores his own ‘circularity,’ evident in his own ‘maxim,’ of rejecting AV1611 readings “by any means,” 2 Corinthians 11:3a; apparent lack of manuscript support, alleged recension and conflation in the Byzantine “text-type,” Erasmus’s notes, “a great treasure” like Codex Aleph (supposedly such) and alleged “harmonization” and “expansions of piety” etc. His note above could be re-worded as follows. “I, James White, who reject 1 John 5:7 do so by merely repeating the maxim that the KJV is not the Word of God wherever I can find something that conflicts with it, and hence the passage should not be there (i.e. I use completely circular reasoning).” But White is lying about Dr Hills, who gives a comprehensive summary of early sources for 1 John 5:7, including Cyprian, 250 AD, which White wilfully ignored insofar as he had Dr Hills’s book in front of him. See Dr Holland’s remarks above, in refutation of White’s lie. Moreover, White was clearly too careless to check out the work of R.L. Dabney23 p 322 who gives a further explanation of how 1 John 5:7 might initially have been removed from early Greek manuscripts, by means that were not accidental. See remarks by Whitney and Wilkinson, under White’s Introduction, to the effect that “those who were corrupting the scriptures, claimed that they were really correcting them” and Colwell’s statement that “The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today in the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately.” Dabney states. “There are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous Origen. Those who are best acquaint- ed with the history of Christian opinion know best, that Origen was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least earliest channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the church in after ages...He disbelieved the full inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, holding that the inspired men apprehended and stated many things obscurely...He expressly denied the consubstantial unity of the Persons and the proper incarnation of the Godhead - the very propositions most clearly asserted in the doctrinal various readings we have under review. “The weight of probability is greatly in favour of this theory, viz., THAT THE ANTI-TRINITARIANS, FINDING CERTAIN CODICES IN WHICH THESE DOCTRINAL READINGS HAD BEEN AL- READY LOST THROUGH THE LICENTIOUS CRITICISM OF ORIGEN AND HIS SCHOOL, IN- DUSTRIOUSLY DIFFUSED THEM, WHILE THEY ALSO DID WHAT THEY DARED TO ADD TO THE OMISSIONS OF SIMILAR READINGS.” Concerning the Irish Manuscript 61 that White dismisses as “highly suspect,” attention is drawn to Dr Ruckman’s description23 p 321 of this document. “How about that Manuscript 61 at Dublin? “Well, according to Professor Michaelis (cited in Prof. Armin Panning’s “New Testament Criti- cism”), Manuscript 61 has four chapters in Mark that possess three coincidences with Old Syriac, 93 two of which also agree with the Old Itala: ALL READINGS DIFFER FROM EVERY GREEK MANUSCRIPT EXTANT IN ANY FAMILY. The Old Itala was written long before 200 A.D., and the Old Syriac dates from before 170 (Tatian’s Diatessaron). “Manuscript 61 was supposed to have been written between 1519 and 1522; the question becomes us, “FROM WHAT?” Not from Ximenes’s Polyglot - his wasn’t out yet. Not from Erasmus, for it doesn’t match his “Greek” in many places. The literal affinities of Manuscript 61 are with the SYR- IAC (Acts 11:26), and that version WAS NOT KNOWN IN EUROPE UNTIL 1552 (Moses Mardin).” Dr Ruckman’s findings add support for 1 John 5:7 from Tatian and the Old Syriac, 170-180 AD, in harmony with the Old Itala Bibles, whose text dates from 157 AD. Again, hardly “a later addition.” In opposition to all this, White’s ally, D. Kutilek, has an article entitled A Simple Outline on 1 John 5:7 on his site, www.kjvonly.org/index.html. He declares. “An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus’ requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.” “Simple” is the operative word. • Who was this Irish monk? • What manuscript did he copy from? • Who testified about “the disputed words” being “on a special paper” and where is the evidence? • Why should a forger risk arousing suspicion by use of the “special paper”? • Even then, how does use of the “special paper” establish unequivocally that the “disputed words” were not in the source manuscript? • Where is the statement from Erasmus protesting against 1 John 5:7? It is significant that Kutilek fails to address any of these questions. Unless he does, his assertions with respect to Manuscript 61 must be rejected as spurious. With incisive comments on much of the above, Dr Ruckman summarises the evidence for 1 John 5:7 as follows with respect to texts and citations17, “If I had debated Flimsy-Jimmy, I would have pulled Which Bible? on him (by David Otis Fuller) and put pages 211 and 212 before the video camera. You see, the King James translators had four Waldensian Bibles on their writing tables in 1611. These Waldensian Bibles had 1 John 5:7-8 in them.” See remarks under Catholic Corrupters and Centuries of Warfare in KJO Review Full Text pp 14ff www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php. Dr Ruckman continues. “Watch God Almighty preserving His words. In spite of the negative, critical, destructive work of “godly Conservative and Evangelical “scholars.” AD 170: Old Syriac and Old Latin, AD 180: Tatian and Old Syriac, AD 200:Tertullian and Old Latin, AD 250: Cyprian and Old Latin, AD 350: Priscillian and Athanasius, AD 415: Council of Carthage, AD 450: Jerome’s Vulgate, AD 510: Ful- gentius, AD 750: Wianburgensis, AD 1150: Miniscule manuscript 88, AD 1200-1500: Four Walden- sian Bibles, AD 1519: Greek Manuscript 61, AD 1520-1611: Erasmus TR, AD 1611: King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. “God had to work a miracle to get the truth of 1 John 5:7-8 preserved; He preserved it. You have it; but not in an RV, RSV, NRSV, CEV, ASV, NASV, or NIV.” 94 See also David Daniels’s31 pp 110ff review of the evidence for 1 John 5:7. He states “157-1600s AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse*. It took [the Roman Catholic religion] until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks…on the Vaudois and their Bible. But the Vaudois were success- ful in preserving God’s words to the days of the Reformation.” See remarks above and under Catho- lic Corrupters and Centuries of Warfare. *This site32 is also a good summary of the evidence and researcher Kevin James33 p 230ff provides a thoroughgoing discussion of 1 John 5:7. See also Dr Mrs Riplinger’s extensive remarks on why 1 John 5:7-8 was cut out of Greek manuscripts in Hazardous Materials pp 750ff. She states in summary “The Greeks who worshipped the gods of mythology and the “UNKNOWN” God, recoiled at a verse which describes the Godhead, then concludes, “This is the true God...” (Acts 17:23, 1 John 5:20). The weak Greek monks and priests caved in and simply omitted the verse which stirred the antagonism of unbelievers.”

95 White’s 7 ‘KJB Errors’ - Luke 2:22, Acts 5:30, Hebrews 10:23, Jeremiah 34:16, Revelation 16:5, Acts 19:37 and 1 John 5:7 Continued From Chapter 5 – “The King James Only Camp” Acts 5:30, Hebrews 10:23, Acts 19:37 James White has these comments on Acts 5:30 and Hebrews 10:2318 pp 225-226. See below. Note that the readings that he recommends also match those of the DR, JB, JB, NWT. See Appendix 1, Table A1. Note also that he has published his own responses to Dr Ruckman’s evaluation of James White’s seven ‘errors’ in the AV1611 on his site, though only with respect to Luke 2:22 and Acts 5:30. See aomin.org/ResponseToRuckman.html. The reader can judge whether or not White has made an honest and accurate response to Dr Ruckman’s evaluation. In this writer’s view, White has not added anything of substance to the material in his book on these verses. Detailed comment on his response is beyond the scope of this work but inspection of White’s response shows that he has not yet identified any finally-authoritative ‘bible’ as the pure word of God between two covers, so his later remarks are no further advanced than his recommendation18 p 7 that Christians “purchase and use multiple translations of the bible.” Once again, no doubt James White would be happy to act as the ‘final authority’ for any of the Lord’s people bemused over different renderings found in these “multiple translations.” But as Solomon says, “Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him” Proverbs 26:12. White’s comments on Acts 5:30 and Hebrews 10:23 follow. “The NKJV corrects the problem seen in the KJV rendering [of Acts 5:30]. Peter did not say that the Jews had slain Jesus and then hung him on a tree. Instead, they put the Lord to death by hanging Him on the tree. It is difficult to see exactly where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no “and” in the text to separate “slew” and “hanged on a tree.” “The KJV translation of Hebrews 10:23 leaves most people wondering as well. The KJV has the phrase “the profession of our faith.” Literally, the first term should be translated “confession,” but it is the KJV’s very unusual translation of the Greek term “hope” as “faith” that is difficult to understand. The Greek term appears thirteen times in the TR, and each time it is translated “hope” with this one exception.” Dr Ruckman writes16 p 283, 17 as follows on Acts 5:30, Hebrews 10:23 Acts 19:37, his emphases. “Acts 5:30 “is a simple mistranslation18 pp 81, 225-226, 238.” The Jackleg’s reasoning is that the AV translators thought that Jesus Christ was slain before He was crucified. The silly child surmised this from “whom YE slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts 5:30)… “White’s famous “How can this be?”18 p 131…comes out like this “IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE” (i.e. difficult for HIM) exactly where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no “and” in the text to separate “slew” and “hanged on a tree”… ““Blazing hypocrisy in action.” “There is no ‘and’ in the text”…There is no “came” in any Greek manuscript in 1 Thessalonians 2:5 (NASV). There is no article (“the”) in any Greek manuscript “extant” for 1 Corinthians 2:16 (NIV). There is no “was” in any Greek manuscript extant for the third clause of 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASV). There is no “Who had been” in any Greek manuscript on Matthew 1:6 (NASV). So? There is no “God” in any Greek manuscript extant in Acts 7:59 (NKJV). So? So Mr White simply pretended there was a problem…where there wasn’t any problem. He found no fault with the same “problem” in the versions he was trying to sell… “Here is 2 Samuel 20:12; 1 Samuel 17:51; and 2 Samuel 3:27, 30. Peter, James, and John (Acts 5:30)…knew that David “slew” Goliath with a sling and later “slew” him with a sword…how did [White] fail to see that Abishai was guilty of “slaying” Abner, when Abishai wasn’t even in the vi- 96 cinity when Joab slew Abner?…“How did Amasa DIE, and then LATER “wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway?””… “That is the Hebrew way of stating killing and murder. Often a man is killed and dead, and then a statement is made that he was slain, later. He is “slain before he is slain”… “Every Jew in Peter’s audience understood the order of the words in the King James text. Luke, who was the author of Acts, chapter 5, said in his Gospel, Luke 24:20: “The chief priests and rul- ers…HAVE CRUCIFIED HIM.” “They did nothing of the kind. “No ruler, or chief priest, put one hand to one nail, or one whip, or one crown of thorns, or one crucifix during the entire operation… “No Jew “SLEW” Christ and no Jew “CRUCIFIED” Christ. “It was Roman soldiers who mocked Him, whipped Him, and nailed Him…[but] no Roman soldier could have “SLAIN” Christ if he had stayed up twenty centuries…White forgot that Jesus Christ laid down His life (John 10:15) because NO MAN (Roman or Jew) could “slay” Him (John 10:18)… “The truth is that [the Jews] were “accessories before the fact.” So they were charged with Christ’s murder. That was exactly the case with Abishai in 2 Samuel. The Jews put Jesus Christ into a situation where someone else could do the “slaying” (John 19:11). This act (John 19:11) was equivalent to the Jewish leaders killing (1 Thess. 2:15), crucifying (Luke 24:20), and slaying (Acts 5:30) Him: although they never touched Him after He picked up His cross. Peter is charging them on pre- killing grounds. To all practical purposes, they slew Him the moment they passed the death sentence on Him (Mark 14:64), and they did do that. “Abishai slew Abner because Abishai was in “cahoots” with his brother. He, himself, never touched Abner. David killed Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon [2 Samuel 12:9]. Who didn’t know THAT but Jimmy White? “Total ignorance of Jewish idioms, total ignorance of “accessories before the fact,” total ignorance of shared guilt, total ignorance of Scriptural example, and Scriptural revelation, total ignorance of WHO actually was involved in the crucifixion, plus total ignorance of why the blame was placed on the Jews.” Dr Ruckman summarises this material in his commentary on Acts34 p 213, published in 1974. Why did White ignore it? See this summary23 pp 165-166 of Dr Ruckman’s comments, with respect to the same objections to Acts 5:30, raised by another bible critic. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ “O Biblios” – The Book p 127. “Our critic’s next “error” is in Acts 5:30, where the AV1611 reading “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” should be changed to “whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree” in the NIV. The JB, NWT, Ne and the renderings of all the other Greek texts follow suit, with minor variation. How- ever, the NIV alone has the additional words “from the dead” which do not appear in any of the Greek editions. “Of this alteration, Dr. Ruckman states, ibid p 213: “The idea behind the juggling (of verse 30) is that the “first aorist middle indicative” and the “first aorist active participle” are supposed to indicate the slaying took place AFTER the hanging. But, of course, all of this grammatical twaddling does nothing for the text; “YE” in the text is aimed at men who did not even touch a nail, spear, rope, mallet, cross, or hammer. They did not “SLAY” Christ BEFORE or AFTER. He was hung on a tree, and Peter’s remark is going behind the bare act to the INTENTION of the elders of Israel when they delivered Jesus over to Pilate. First Aorists and Middle participles are about as relevant to proper exposition of the text as first basemen and middle line-backers.” John 11:53 states “they 97 took counsel together for to put him to death” and 1 John 3:15 states “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.”” Dr Holland24 p 183 states with respect to Acts 5:30 that, his emphases, “Some scholars object to the phrase, “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” They argue that the correct rendering is “whom ye killed by hanging on a tree” and that the conjunction and in the KJV misleadingly suggests that the Jews first killed Christ and then hanged his body on the tree [Dr Holland cites White18 p 225-6 in a footnote]. This suggestion is faulty in that it misconstrues the text of the Authorized Version, making the text say “whom ye slew and THEN hanged on a tree.” “In English, the word and does not usually mean a period of time, as is suggested with the addition of the word then. The text is not saying that the Jews murdered Christ and then placed him on the cross. The word and is a conjunction which simply links two thoughts together. As such, it is used as the word further. We understand the text to mean that the Jews were responsible for killing their Messiah. Further, they were responsible for having him placed on the cross. This is a proper use of English. When one assumes that the text is stating that the Jews murdered the Lord and then crucified him, they are reading their own thoughts into the text. The translation “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” is just as correct as the translation “whom you killed by hanging on the tree.”” Dr Ruckman proceeds with his answer to White’s objection to Hebrews 10:23 as found in the AV1611. “The word “faith” here should have been “hope” (Greek eipidos, from eipis)… “White’s typical comments are that the AV reading “is difficult to understand” and “leaves most people wondering as well”…I never met any Christian who was “left wondering” at the “faith” of Hebrews 10:23, especially since the immediate context (vs. 22) and the nearest context are dealing with FAITH (Heb. 11:1-30, 10:22, and 10:38)… “Hebrews 10:23 is a simple case where a word that normally has been translated one way is now translated another way. Instances in the corrupt Bibles that White recommends are so numerous, no one could list them on five pages. For example, in the NIV, the Greek for “fornication” (Greek por- nei) is translated as “marital unfaithfulness” in Matthew 5:32, “sexual immorality” in Matthew 19:9, “illegitimate children” in John 8:41, “evil” in Romans 1:29, and “sexual sin” in 2 Corinthi- ans 12:21. “This was the NIV: six different ways to translate one word, and White says TWO different ways of translating “eipidos” is an ERROR. The NIV, that White recommends to high heaven, says that por- neias is “sexual immorality” twelve times and then says it’s “adultery” in Revelation 2:22… “The word “hope” in the New Testament, for the child of God, is a word used many times for the Rapture of the Body of Christ, where the Christian will receive a new body…Titus 2:13, 1 John 3:1- 3. Our HOPE is a person…The passage in Hebrews 10:16-25 is NOT Christ coming for any Chris- tian on this earth. The “day” spoken of in 10:25 is a day where Israel is judged (vs. 30), and the Lord’s coming is in judgement (vs. 37) as found in Malachi 4:1-4. Hebrews is aimed at Hebrews. (White could never figure that one out, either)… “Nobody ever held fast to a “profession of hope.” Timothy’s “good profession” (1 Tim. 6:12) before “many witnesses” was his profession of FAITH in Jesus Christ. Notice the identical profession in Hebrews 4:14. Our FAITH in Someone is our profession which we must “hold fast.” You don’t go round declaring “I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved, I hope I’m saved.” That profession is worthless. The faith in Christ that the Hebrew is exhorted to “hold fast” in Hebrews 10:23 (“our faith”) is defined in verses 16-22: it is immediate access to Jesus Christ in the third heaven because of His blood atonement… “Perhaps Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p 531-2, can help White out…“The definition of PISTIS (Faith, more than ninety times in the New Testament) as…in He- brews 11:1 is quite in keeping with the Old Testament inter-relating of PISTUEIN (to believe) and 98 ELPIZEIN…as well as ELPIS (“hope”)…With PISTIS (faith), ELPIS (hope), this constitutes Chris- tian experience…what is denoted by ELPIS (hope) can be included in PISTIS (faith).” “So the AV had the correct word since it included BOTH words, and White’s doll babies (NIV and NASV) were just sorry displays of Beginner’s Greek Grammar…Correct White’s Greek (eipidos) with the English (“faith”) in Hebrews 10:23.” Note that though not a Bible believer, even Kittel acknowledges the AV1611 reading as accurate. Concerning White’s opinion that “Literally, the first term should be translated “confession,” the word “confession” is used in the scriptures with respect to confession of sin; Joshua 7:19, 2 Chroni- cles 30:22, Ezra 10:11, Daniel 9:4 and as “confess” in 1 John 1:9 and elsewhere in both Testaments, e.g. Leviticus 5:5, Nehemiah 1:6, Matthew 3:6, Acts 19:18, as “confessing” and “confessed” respectively. Where it is used in Romans 10:10, and as “confess” in verse 9, the context includes the saved sinner acknowledging that the Lord Jesus Christ died for his sins. The word “confess” is used several times in the New Testament to denote that the Lord Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, Matthew 10:32, Luke 12:8, John 9:22, 12:42 and by implication He Who would “save his people from their sins,” in contrast to “the law of the fathers,” Acts 22:3, thus incurring ‘excommunication,’ or expul- sion from the synagogue. The Lord Jesus Christ “before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession” 1 Timothy 6:13, when Pilate asked Him a specific question, “Art thou the King of the Jews…Art thou a king then?” John 18:33-37. Like John the Baptist, who was also asked specific questions, Jesus “confessed, and denied not: but confessed” John 1:20. “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.” Pilate was convinced. See John 18:39. “Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” The term “confession,” therefore, has particular connotations that differentiate it from the term “profession,” even if the distinction may be fine. For example, Timothy “professed a good profession before many witnesses” 1 Timothy 6:13b. His profession was like the Lord’s confession, verse 13 but instead of an answer to a specific question, such as that posed by Pilate, Timothy’s “profession” would have been that of what Paul described as “the unfeigned faith that is in thee” 2 Timothy 1:5a. Timothy’s profession was therefore like that of Hebrews 10:23. The AV1611 is correct in both passages and White is wrong. Dr Holland24 pp 190-191, 35 has these informative comments on Hebrews 10:23. ““Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)” (Hebrews 10:23). “The common word for “faith” is the Greek word “pistis.” However, the word used here is “elpidos” which is translated as “hope.” ““The KJV translation of Hebrews 10:23 leaves most people wondering as well. The KJV has the phrase ‘the profession of our faith.’ Literally the first term should be translated ‘confession,’ but it is the KJV’s very unusual translation of the Greek term ‘hope’ as ‘faith’ that is difficult to understand. The Greek term appears thirteen times in the TR, and each time it is translated ‘hope’ with this one exception.” (The King James Only Controversy, p. 226). “This does not mean that it is a mistranslation. In fact, the KJV translators stated that they were not bound by strict word counts and that sometimes the context demands that the same Greek word be translated differently. The English words “faith” and “hope” carry the idea of trust, assurance that what has been told will occur. The Thesaurus for my Microsoft Works has for the word “hope,” “confidence: faith, reliance, trust, belief, assurance.” Further, there is within Scripture a clear connection between faith and hope. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for” (Hebrews 11:1). 99 Notice the clear Biblical connection of faith with hope. The Scripture state, “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” (Romans 5:2). And in reference to Abraham, the word of God says, ““Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb” (Romans 4:18-19). “We are saved by hope (Romans 8:24) and yet we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). We are told to place our faith and hope in God (1 Peter 1:21). The context of Hebrews chapter ten informs us that we are to have full assurance of faith (vs.22) and the One we are trusting is “faithful” (vs. 23). The context of the Greek word “elpis” in this verse can be expressed by the English words faith, hope, or trust. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, even though it cites the American Standard Version, says of this verse: ““Confession of our hope (ASV). And unwavering confession of faith in the living Christ. God un- dergirds our hope by his own promises, for he is faithful who promised. This then speaks of further affirmation based upon faith in the faithfulness of God” (Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1962, p. 1420). “Kittel notes the comparison of faith and hope when defining the Greek word “elpis” (hope). He even notes that in the Greek LXX there is an “interrelating” of the two Greek words for faith and hope. ““If hope is fixed on God, it embraces at once the three elements of expectation of the future, trust, and the patience of waiting. Any one of these aspects may be emphasized. The definition of pistis as elpizomenon upostasis in H[e]b[rews] 11:1 is quite in keeping with the OT interrelating of pisteuein and elpizein and the usage of the LXX, which has upostasis as well as elpis” (Theological Diction- ary Of The New Testament, Vol. II. p. 531). “Faith, trust, and hope are used interchangeably. A related word of elpis (hope) is elpizo. It is translated as “hope” in places such as Luke 6:34 and Romans 8:25. However, it is mostly translated as “trust” in places such as Matthew 12:21 and Romans 15:24. A related word of pistis (faith) is pistuo. It is translated as “believe” in places such as Matthew 8:13 and John 3:16. However, it is also translated as “trust” in 1 Timothy 1:11 (as is another form of it in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 which is translated as “trust”). “The context of Hebrews chapters ten and eleven, demands that this type of trust be translated as “faith” instead of its normal translation of “hope.” Also, since we are told to “hold fast the profession” we must compare the Scriptures to know that our profession deals with “faith” (1 Timothy 6:12).” White has clearly not examined Hebrews 10:23 in anything like the depth that Dr Holland has. Dr Ruckman writes17 with respect to Acts 19:37, his emphases, “Here, the Greek word for “temples,” found in all “text-types” and “families,” has been “mistranslated” by the king’s men (1611) as “churches,” instead of “temples.” This is an error, according to Jimbo. However! Such translation is not an error in the NIV, that Jimbo recommends. Scores of times, in the NIV, this type of dynamic equivalence is used… “The passages are Matthew 6:22, John 1:16, 6:27, 14:30, Acts 26:20, Romans 1:3, 2:17, 6:4, 8:10, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5:5, 7:4, 17, 11:19, 12:6, Galatians 2:17, 3:3, 10, 4:21, Ephesians 1:23, 2:3, 4:2, 7, 17, 5:3, Colossians 2:3, 3:14 etc… “No translating committee on earth (for 400 years) have ever translated every Greek word (from any text) exactly according to its lexicography (dictionary meaning) as given in a Greek lexicon. All translators “take liberties” in order to get across what they think the meaning should be in their language… 100 “Why did [White] allow [the NASV and the NIV] “affirmative action liberties” which he denied to the AV? I will tell you why: a vicious, irrational, Satanic prejudice against the greatest book that ever showed up on this planet. Consider: “When the King’s men substituted “churches” for “temples,” they had just translated the “hieron” of “hierosulos” as “temple” more than fifty times in Matthew-Acts. They knew the root of the word was “temples.” No ignorance was involved. James White pretended they erred through ignorance. He erred through ignorance… “Jimbo’s NIV had just committed this same dastardly “error” in the same chapter, for right at verses 39 and 41 we read “assembly” (NIV) for “church.” But this word was “ekklesia.” The NIV had just translated it as “church” (or “churches”) twenty-two times in Matthew and Acts. Why? If “ecclesia” means “assembly” – and so the NIV and NASV translate it in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41 – what is this same word doing standing as “church” in the rest of the book of Acts and the Pauline Epis- tles?… ““Church” is a dynamic equivalent for “ecclesia.” It is not “formal equivalence.” The AV translators WISELY chose – intentionally, with full knowledge – “churches” at Acts 19:37 to show you that the heathen who worship female goddesses (see the context!) not only have “temples,” but “churches,” as in St Peter, St Michael’s, St Jude’s, the Lateran, etc. They simply gave you an advanced revelation “not found in the original Greek”! “Poor old Jim White will die declaring the NIV can do things like that, but if the AV does it is an “error”…” In other words, White is ‘inconsistent’ and has a ‘double standard.’ Alan O’Reilly January 2011

101 Appendix 5 - Seven Purifications of the Textus Receptus, the Received Text Introduction Historical Bibles, English Bibles and the 1611 Holy Bible Editions have all been shown to have undergone a seven stage purification process according to Psalm 12:6-7. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/ The purification of the Lord’s word – Psalm 12:6-7 and also www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php Seven Stage Pu- rification Process – Oil Refinery – in answer to the AV1611 critics. The Textus Receptus or Received Text has also undergone seven purification stages according to Psalm 12:6-7, the final perfected stage being the 1611 Holy Bible, in English, not Greek. This work explains these seven purification stages for the Textus Receptus or Received Text. History of the Textus Receptus This site is useful for information on the publication dates of the Textus Receptus and the editors. See www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html#sources. The writer says this: Preface The Bible is no ordinary book. It is not a human book. The Bible is God’s inspired and infallible Word - God’s Book. It is the Book which God has given to His people to teach them the Truth which they must believe and the godly life which they must live. That is why the Bible is so important for every believer. Without the Holy Scriptures the believer has no Word of God. He has no standard of what is the Truth and what is the lie, what is righteous and what is wicked. Does this mean that the 1611 Holy Bible is “all scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16 according to that author? No. Nowhere does the author actually identify any inspired Bible. However, he provides this information. The Greek text was readily available in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), the five editions of Erasmus (1516-1535), the four editions of Robert Stephanus (1546-1551), and the ten editions of Theodore Beza (1560-1598). They also consulted the editions of Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), and Plantin (1572). Christopher Plantin published the Antwerp Polyglot en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantin_Polyglot. Peter Heisey, USA missionary to Romania, confirms that the King James translators specifically consulted the edition of Aldus as one of their sources for the Textus Receptus. . See Waiting for Waite www.scribd.com/document/45876004/Waiting-for-Dr-Waite-Letter-Size. Another useful site is this www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vincent_textualcriticism.html though the author Dr Marvin Vincent of Union Theological Seminary 1899 was not a Bible believer* and rejected the Received Text, as the site shows. That is beside the point, though, because Vin- cent’s work includes a detailed history of the editions of the Textus Receptus. *As an aside, the sheep-fleecers are still out there as Matthew 7:15 shows. “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” This site www.bereaninternetministry.org/King%20James%20Bible.html appears supportive of the 1611 Holy Bible, especially with its graphics - see figure - until the writer refers with approval to the stance of Dr Donald Waite of the Dean Burgon Society www.deanburgonsociety.org/ on the 1611 Holy Bible. Unsurprisingly the writer then disparages the names which are below every name for this crowd who profess to believe the 1611 Holy Bible but don’t believe it; Ruckman and Riplinger, who profess to believe the 1611 Holy Bible and do believe it. The writer, who is obviously a Waite-ite, of course has no Bible that is all scripture given by inspiration of God. The ministry’s Constitution 102 www.bereaninternetministry.org/Church.html states that We believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired, equally inspired, eternal Word of God…This assembly will not allow any Bible to be used in the pulpit or teaching ministry other than the authorized King James Version. However, nowhere does the Constitution state that the 1611 Holy Bible is “all scripture” that “is given by inspiration of God” 2 Timothy 3:16. Hal Lindsey in Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth p 80 says that the Devil will use a lake of truth to disguise a pint of poison. See Postscript – How the Poison is Spread. The Waite-ites are similar and more dangerous than Bible rejecters like Marvin Vincent. Vincent overtly rejected the Received Text and in turn rejected the 1611 Holy Bi- ble but the Waite-ites are more deadly. They covertly sap faith in the 1611 Holy Bible as “the pure words…of the LORD” Psalm 12:6 because they do what “what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery” Ezekiel 8:12 in that they insist that they have the pure Bible in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek but as Nehemiah rebuked the enemies of Israel “There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart” Nehemiah 6:8. See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php D. A. Waite Response and Reply to DiVietro’s attack on Gail Riplinger - Flotsam Flush. Getting back to Vincent’s work, he states this about Aldus’ Edition and the Complutensian Polyglot. Although the emperor had protected Erasmus’s first edition against reprint for four years, it was reproduced by Aldus Manutius, with some variations, but with…most of the typographical errors, at Venice, in 1518. It was placed at the end of the Græca Biblia, the Aldine Septuagint... The printing of the entire work was completed on the 10th of July, 1517. But though the first printed, this was not the first published edition of the Greek Testament. Pope Leo X withheld his approval until 1520, and the work was not issued until 1522, three years after the cardinal’s [Ximenes] death, and six years after the publication of Erasmus’s Testament. The entire cost was about $115,000, and only six hundred copies were printed. This work is known as the Complutensian Polyglot... Vincent of course lists the Elzevir Editions beginning in 1624 and including the 1633 Edition from which the term Textus Receptus is obtained. The 1611 Holy Bible, the Perfect Textus Receptus Dr Hills makes this insightful comment. See standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf Chapter 8 and printed edition p 220. ...the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus This writer believes that the 1611 Holy Bible is both an independent variety of the Textus Receptus and the authoritative, perfect final version of the Textus Receptus on the basis of the sevenfold purification process that Psalm 12:6-7 set out and is observed in the history of the Textus Receptus. The Seven Stage Purification of the Textus Receptus The pre-1611 editions of the Received Text may reasonably be listed as follows, combining the individual editions of each editor. The Elzevir editions are set aside because they are post-1611. 1. Erasmus/Aldus 1516-1535, 1518 – Aldus being mainly a reproduction of Erasmus’ 1st Edition 2. Ximenes/Stuncia/Complutensian 1522 3. Colinaeus 1534 4. Stephanus 1546-1551 5. Beza 1560-1598 6. Plantin/Antwerp 7. 1611 Authorized King James Holy Bible 103 Conclusions may be drawn from the above list that in certain respects would horrify the Waite-ites, as least by profession. Like Saul with Stephen they, like all critics of the 1611 Holy Bible, know they’re wrong by means of the witness of “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” John 1:9 but they don’t want to be put out of the synagogue, aka self-styled (Nehe- miah 6:8) OOOOO – Origenistic Order of Obstinate Originals-Onlyists John 3:19, 9:22, Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, 22:19-20. They therefore will not submit to 2 Corinthians 4:1-2. “Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” The historical languages Bibles, the English Bibles up to 1611 and the King James Bible Editions all fulfill Psalm 12:6-7 with respect to “The words of the LORD” Psalm 12:6. As shown, history shows that the Textus Receptus likewise follows a seven stage purification process as Psalm 12:6-7 set out but its final perfected inspired form is in English, not Greek and is the 1611 Holy Bible. Therefore: Conclusions 1. Rome i.e. Ximenes etc. is relegated to a stage in the Textus Receptus purification process. Rome is not allowed “to have the preeminence among them” 3 John 9. God has superseded Rome’s single contribution to the purification process. 2. The pre-1611 Textus Receptus editors are not allowed “to have the preeminence among them” 3 John 9. God has superseded their contributions. 3. The Greek, so-called, is not allowed “to have the preeminence among them” 3 John 9. God has superseded the Greek, so-called, with the 1611 Holy Bible English. That would make the Waite-ites etc. howl and that is God’s way of revealing them for what they are because sheep don’t howl. Wolves do. See remarks on Matthew 7:15 above. 4. The post-1611 Textus Receptus editors are not allowed “to have the preeminence among them” 3 John 9 because God determined how His Received New Testament Text would progress before the year 1624. The post-1611 editors contributed a name. It has stuck and is useful but that is all. However, every post-1611 scholar against the inspired 1611 Holy Bible has as “his heart’s desire” Psalm 10:3 “let us make a name” Genesis 11:4 for himself, even if he has to do it by means of the Devil’s lake of truth/pint of poison. See Postscript. 5. The 1611 Holy Bible is “the word of a king” Ecclesiastes 8:4 in English. It can be turned into 1st century Greek by reverse translation but the result is not the original nor is it authoritative because “God is finished with it.” See In Awe of Thy Word p 956. It would simply picture the original for specialist studies, with no power at all. 6. The 1611 Holy Bible in English is the language of the End Times. See In Awe of Thy Word pp 19ff. Any language may have “the words of the LORD” Psalm 12:6 if “It is turned as clay to the seal” Job 38:14 of the 1611 Holy Bible that should be the standard for all non-English translations. See purebiblepress.com/bible/ and A Brief Analysis of Missionary Authority by Jonathan Richmond Bible Believer’s Bulletin August 2013 p 6. That is a further blessing from the Author of the 1611 Holy Bible in addition to superseding the Greek so-called. 7. If that is how God perceives His sevenfold purified Textus Receptus today, the sevenfold purified 1611 Holy Bible, as this writer believes that He has, then all would-be 1611 Holy Bible clarifiers, correctors, improvers etc. by means of the Greek, so-called, should pay careful attention to the following warning from a king, no less. Cruel and unusual punishments are no more where the 1611 Holy Bible has held sway but an offender still fossicking “for words buried in haunted Greek graveyards” In Awe of Thy Word p 544, can still be hung out to dry and his ministry still downgraded by the Offended Party into “the dross of silver” Ezekiel 22:18 and “the refuse of the wheat” Amos 8:6. “The word of a king” Ecclesiastes 8:4 follows. Ezra 6:11: “Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this.” 104 Postscript – How the Poison is Spread www.bereaninternetministry.org/King%20James%20Bible.html item by Pastor Kelly Sensenig First comes the differentiation between pure and corrupt scripture sources, presented with vivid and indeed helpful graphics. Who could doubt the presenters? “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you” Job 12:2.

Then comes the declaration: This assembly will not allow any Bible to be used in the pulpit or teaching ministry other than the authorized King James Version. Who could doubt the declarers? Followed by the disclaimer and the denial, emphases in original, this writer’s remarks in braces []: ...we must also reject the teaching of those “KJV-only” proponents (Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger) who claim that the English of the KJV is inspired and superior to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJV. This is an erroneous position and error that is rejected by most loyal King James followers, Dr. Waite, being one of them, who stated: “God Himself did not ‘breathe out’ English, or German, or French, or Spanish, or Latin, or Italian. He did ‘breathe out’ He- brew/Aramaic, and Greek” (Waite, Defending the King James Bible, p. 246). Of course, Dr. Waite is not saying that our English King James Version lacks inspiration [he is], what he is referring to is that...[no-one] can one claim that every word in the English of the KJV is inspired in the same way, as the autographs (without flaw and error) [Did not the Holy Ghost give the word of God at first in the mother-tongue of the nations to whom it was addressed? Why do you speak against the Holy Ghost? – John Wycliffe, John Wycliffe: The Dawn of the Reformation pp 45-46], or the descendent manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Greek text, which also preserve the inspired text [unidentified]. The English does not correct the languages; the languages correct the English [the 1611 Holy Bible lacks inspiration]. In a similar way, the Greek at times corrects the translators [the 1611 Holy Bible lacks inspiration]; the translators do not correct the Greek [the 1611 Holy Bible lacks inspiration]...Inspiration and preservation specifically applies to the Hebrew and Greek texts - not a certain type of English language [the 1611 Holy Bible lacks inspiration]. Think of it this way; if the 1611 King James Bible with its English was the only inspired Bible, then those versions before 1611 (Tyndale’s English version and all other Bible versions with a Received Text base) were not God’s Word and the Church did not possess the truth until 1611. Those living in 1610 did not have the Bible. This is a rather silly and unlearned position [the same must apply to the Textus Receptus Editions in the figure. The writer ignores this]...As stated previously, the Greek corrects the Eng- lish, the English does not correct the Greek [which Greek edition?]. In spite of the conclusions of the King James Only Movement, there is no such thing as double inspiration (the translators of the 1611 King James Version were inspired and the English of the King James Version is inspired) [See Isaiah 53:7/Acts 8:32]. However, we do believe that...we possess an inspired Bible that has been accurately copied and passed down to us through the transmission process [Bible unidentified]. Thereby the deceivers (supposedly indubitable) dupe the victims who are as “children, tossed to and fro...by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” Ephesians 4:14. A shock awaits the deceivers who forsook “the word of a king” Ecclesiastes 8:4. At “the judgment seat of Christ” Romans 14:10 “their folly shall be manifest unto all men” 2 Timothy 3:9. 105 Appendix 6 – Answers to Superstitious Nonsense from Pastor Richard Klueg See www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/why-the-av-only-7434.php The 1611 Holy Bible versus three unclean spirits – Revelation 16, pp 14, 16, 20, 21-22, 25, 27 and these extracts. References have been inserted in braces []. Richard Klueg’s Superstitious Nonsense comments are in green bold. No other format changes have been made. “Faith is dependent upon regeneration and not vice versa” p 2. You insist, together with Palmer, that “faith is dependent upon regeneration and not vice versa”. This is of course the Calvinistic heresy of “Irresistible Grace”, the fourth heresy of the acrostic TU- LIP, which you maintain is what “our Lord taught in John 3”. What “our Lord taught in John 3” is exactly the reverse of your opinion on the matter. The Lord refers to the necessity of the new birth in verses 3, 5, 7, 8 and then describes the means of the new birth explicitly in verses 15, 16, 18 and 36, where there is absolutely NO mention of saving faith being preceded by regeneration. John 3:18, 19 state “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Deliverance from condemnation is by the new birth but is dependent solely on believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, verse 18, NOT regeneration followed by belief. By contrast, a man is condemned for rejecting “the true Light”, John 1:9 and verse 19. According to Calvin’s system, a man cannot vol- untarily believe on the Lord Jesus Christ but if that were so, he could not be held responsible for vol- untarily rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ although John 3:19 shows that he is. It follows that either Calvin’s God is an unjust God theologically or Calvin’s system is heresy. 1 Timothy 2:3, 4 demon- strate that the truth is the latter. “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” “The NIV is correct, then, in translating helel...as “morning star”” p 3. You then insist that the NIV translates helel correctly as “morning star” on the basis of the Greek LXX, the Latin Vulgate and Roman usage and accuse Mrs. Riplinger of “shoddy Bible study”. As with “Greek manuscript tradition” you give no indication of any general procedure by which these sources may be elevated as “authorities” over the Holy Bible, AV1611. Your use of them in this instance is therefore highly suspect because it is totally subjective, or in other words, it appears that any “authority” is valid provided it disagrees with the AV1611! This is an underhanded tactic to which Bible critics frequently resort. 2014 update. The AV1611 reads “O Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12. The 1984, 2011 NIVs read “O morning star” and “morning star” respectively. Young’s Concordance, which is a genuine aid to Bible study, although by no means totally favourable to the AV1611, nevertheless gives the meaning of helel as “shining one”, a meaning which includes neither “star” nor “morning”. To infer that helel can be rendered “morning star” must therefore be an interpretation, NOT a translation! As Mrs. Riplinger points out, [New Age Bible Versions Gail Riplinger, Bible and Literary Missionary Foundation, 1993] p 42 “The NIV and NASB give an English translation as if the Hebrew said, “shachar kokab, ben shachar” or morning star, son of the morning (or dawn). Yet the word for star (kokab) appears nowhere in the text. Also ‘morning’ appears only once, as the KJV shows, not twice as new versions indicate. The word kokab is translated as ‘star’ dozens of times by NIV translators; morning or dawn is likewise used hundreds of times. New version editors know boger kokab is ‘morning star’ since it is used in Job 38:7. If God had intended to communicate ‘morning star’, he could have repeated it here. The word he chose, helel, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament, just as “Lucifer” appears nowhere else.” 106 “The NIV (in Isaiah 57:15)...indicates masculine gender in a way the KJV does not” p 4. You then commend the NIV for its rendering of Isaiah 57:15 with the statement “The NIV...includes the masculine pronoun “he” in this verse and thereby clearly indicates masculine gender in a way the KJV does not”. The readings are as follows. AV1611 “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy” NIV “For this is what the high and lofty One says - he who lives for ever, whose name is holy” The NIV reading is inferior to the AV1611 reading for at least three reasons. 1. It fails to capitalise “holy”. The AV1611 gives due reverence to God in this respect. 2. It fails to identify “eternity” as the actual dwelling place of God, north beyond Alpha Draconis Job 26:7-9, 37:22, 38:30 where “the face of the deep is frozen” Psalm 48:2, 75:6, 7, Ezekiel 1:4 “the third heaven” 2 Corinthians 12:2, Revelation 4. 3. It fails to distinguish explicitly between “the One” and “he”. TWO individuals could be inferred from the NIV reading! This is typical of the confusion in the wording of the new versions which prompted Mrs. Riplinger’s work in the first place [New Age Bible Versions Gail Riplinger] p 4. “The LXX...was produced by Greek speaking Jews before the time of Christ” p 5. You next accuse Mrs. Riplinger of making a statement “little short of insane” when she “singles out...Origen as the producer of the Septuagint (LXX)” [New Age Bible Versions Gail Riplinger] p 537. You state “The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was produced by Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ. Philo, a contemporary of Christ, quotes the LXX directly. A First Century Jewish historian named Josephus also used the LXX along with the He- brew Bible. Every part of the New Testament shows a knowledge of the LXX...Yet Ms. Riplinger would have us believe that the LXX was produced by a church father who lived in the Third Century A.D.!...She can only hope to convince a reader who knows nothing about early church history, and who will not bother to check her claims.” It is obvious that you did not bother particularly to check what Mrs. Riplinger actually wrote about the LXX. She states “It appears that Origen was the author of this A.D. document. The NIV translators admit they use the O.T. text which was “standardized early in the third century by Origen” (reference Kenneth L. Barker The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation Zondervan 1986 pp 50, 89). Hence, Origen’s six column Old Testament, the Hexapala, is used as the LXX today...Hort concedes in his Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek that the LXX, Aleph and B are “the same manuscript Bibles” (reference F.J.A. Hort The Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek Hendrickson Publishers 1988 p 264). Therefore some New Testament quotes match the LXX because, as (Carson) writes, “[S]cholars have argued that Vaticanus [B] came from the same hand [as the LXX] (reference D. A. (Carson) The King James Version Debate Baker Book House 1979 p 53)...Even the edition of The Septuagint marketed today points out in its preface that the stories surrounding its B.C. creation and existence are fables (reference The Septuagint Zondervan 1970). All the LXX manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates calling “the Letter of the pseudo-Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus, which have also been highly suspect” (reference p 309). The existence of an entire Greek manuscript predating the life of Christ has no extant docu- mentation. In fact, only scraps containing a few Old Testament chapters in Greek have ever been found.” Mrs. Riplinger’s book makes it very clear that she identifies Origen as the author of a standardized LXX. She produces documented evidence which demonstrates that the LXX is an A.D., not B.C. document, which explains why some New Testament quotes from the Old Testament match those from Origen’s standardized 3rd Century edition. Living in the 3rd Century, Origen had the New Testament mss. available to him when he complied his “Hexapala” [The Christian’s Handbook of 107 Manuscript Evidence Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola Bible Press, P.O. Box 86, Palatka, Florida 32077, 1976], p 43. Mrs. Riplinger has provided at least 5 references, with author, title, publisher, date of publication and page number in support of her evaluation of the LXX. You provided nothing, no citations of any B.C. LXX ms., no LXX quotations from either Philo or Josephus and no citation from any New Tes- tament writer specifically quoting any B.C. LXX ms.. Yet you expect readers to believe that you have demonstrated “the fallacies and follies” of New Age Versions. I think it is clear just whose work is foolish and fallacious in this context-and it is not Mrs. Riplinger’s. Brenton’s LXX [The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, Zondervan, 1970] which I believe to be the edition quoted by Mrs. Riplinger, states that “the Greek text in this edition is based on an early fourth century manuscript known as Codex Vaticanus...(and) the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.” No B.C. ms. is even mentioned by the publishers, who give the version of Aquila, 126 A.D. as the first specific citation of a Greek Old Testament [The Septua- gint with Apocrypha: Greek and English Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton] p v. They refer explicitly to the fifth column of Origen’s third century Hexapala as “the Septuagint”, ibid. Many so-called “Sep- tuagint papyri” exist but none is dated earlier than 150 A.D. [The Christian’s Handbook of Manu- script Evidence Dr. Peter S. Ruckman] p 48-51. Moreover, no one has ever found a quotation from an LXX in the writings of either Philo or Josephus [The Mythological Septuagint Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believers Press, Pensacola FL., 1996] p 169-172. Advocates of a B.C. LXX simply pretend that such quotations exist, as you do. “Erasmus...supported the pope against Martin Luther” p 5. Of Erasmus’ “support” for the pope, Dr. Gipp [The Answer Book Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., Samu- el C. Gipp, 1989. 2014 update. See samgipp.com/57-was-erasmus-editor-of-the-textus-receptus-a- good-roman-catholic/ Question 57] p 149ff cites him as follows “This monarchy of the Roman pon- tiff is the pest of Christendom.” Dr. Gipp adds “He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences of the monks...He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his criticism. He rejected the bribe flat.” Concerning Luther and the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith, Dr. Gipp shows that you have totally misrepresented Erasmus. I quote from Dr. Gipp as follows: “Of Luther he said, “I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his.” He wrote several letters on Luther’s behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works...And what was “the gospel” to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself. ““Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ.” Of Jesus Christ he stated, “He...nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood.” He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual’s salvation. “The way to enter Paradise,” he said, “is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world.”” Dr. Hills [2014 update. See standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf Chapter 8, p 194-195, The King James Version Defended 3rd Edit. Edward F. Hills Th.D., Christian Re- search Press, P.O. Box 2013, Des Moines, Iowa 50310, 1979] states: “In 1535, (Erasmus) again re- turned to Basel and died there the following year in the midst of his Protestant friends, without rela- tions of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church.” “God inspired the Bible in the original languages and in the original manuscripts” p 7. The complete answer to the above comment is to be found under Jacob Prasch Backlash 1 Para 11, Point 5ii. Part of that answer is reproduced as follows with respect to “the original manuscripts.”

108 “Conclusion” You accuse Mrs. Riplinger of handling “the Holy Bible carelessly and deceitfully” on the basis of 2 Timothy 2:15, NIV. Yet you also state “No English version...is perfect. God inspired the Bible in the original languages and in the original manuscripts”. YOU therefore don’t have “the Holy Bi- ble”. By your own admission no-one has. According to you, all anyone has is an imperfect version and more work is needed to produce “the most accurate and effective translations possible”. You can therefore hardly accuse Mrs. Riplinger of “handling the Holy Bible” in any way, shape or form whatsoever, according to your own standards. It is therefore YOU, not Mrs. Riplinger, who has been careless and deceitful... Moreover, not only does no-one HAVE “the Holy Bible”, no-one ever HAD “the Holy Bible”, according to you. “Bible” means BOOK, not “languages” and not “manuscripts”. There never was on the face of this earth any “inspired” Bible “in the original languages and in the original manuscripts”. There was never any such collation of documents in history and you signally fail to prove otherwise. However, 2 Timothy 3:16 states “ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God”, not just “the originals”. This verse refers to the scriptures to which Timothy had access, verse 15, which could hardly have been “the originals” penned by Moses. That “inspiration” extends to copies and translations of “the originals” is evident from Deuteronomy 17:18, 19 and Acts 2:17-21. The “original” of Acts 2:17-21 was in Greek but it consists of a translation of Joel 2:28-32, the “original” of which was in Hebrew. Note also Genesis 42:14-24, where “an interpreter” is present, verse 23. Clearly the “original Hebrew” must have included a translation of Joseph’s words. Deuteronomy 17:18, 19 states “he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law”. “This law” is both “that which is before the priests the Levites” AND the copy retained by the king. This is the “scriptural” position with respect to “the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15. YOUR position is totally unscriptural and it is therefore not surprising that you are unable to cite any scriptures in support of the notion that “God inspired the Bible in the original languages and in the original manuscripts”. They never can and never will. See again opening graphic and Paul’s warning to Bible believers. “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips” Romans 3:13.

109

References 1 samgipp.com/the-bible-shouldnt-we-be-loyal-only-to-the-original-and-not-a-translation/ Question 1, The Answer Book by Dr Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., Daystar Publishing, 1989 www.daystarpublishing.org/product-category/books/kjv- defense/ 2 sovereignword.org/?series=dr-thomas-hollands-manuscript-evidence-class Lesson 11 Translational Considerations. 2019 Update: Site no longer available 3 Conies, Brass and Easter by J.A. Moorman, B.F.T. #1737 The Bible for Today, pp 13-15 4 Whitewashed, A Critique of James White by Alan O’Reilly, A. V. Publications Corp., 2010, pp 542ff, www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/james-white-dr-divietro-and-dawaite.php 5 Dr D. A. Waite and The Dead Bible Society, pp 57ff 6 “O Biblios” The Book, General Introduction 7 Human Nature in the Bible by William Lyon Phelps, 1922, Introduction 8 Monarchy UK Channel 4 documentary 9 The Greatest Fight in the World, archive.spurgeon.org/misc/gfw.php 10 “O Biblios” The Book, p 1, from The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, p 23 11 The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), p 140n 12 The Big Picture, p 392 13 The History of the New Testament Church, Volumes 1 and 2, pp 24, 26 14 The Christian Leaders of the Last (i.e. 18th) Century, by Rev J.C. Ryle, T Nelson and Sons, 1878, Preface, pp 26, 90 15 “O Biblios” The Book, p 281 16 The Scholarship Only Controversy, Can You Trust the Professional Liars? by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1996 17 Bible Believers Bulletin, September 1995-March 1996. The September and December 1995 issues carried the details of Dr Ruckman’s response to White’s challenge 18 The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James R. White, Bethany House Pub- lishers, 1995 19 www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html, Thomas Holland 20 av1611.com/kjbp/articles.html, Will Kinney, av1611.com/kjbp/articles/whitney-kjoc.html, Tom Whitney 21 www.wayoflife.org/fbns/examining01.htm, David Cloud. Page no longer available 22 www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html, Gail Riplinger 23 “O Biblios” The Book by Alan O’Reilly, Covenant Publishing Ltd., 2001. This work is available online, www.timefortruth.co.uk/why-av-only/. The A4 format of the online version has changed the page numbers from those of the hard copy 24 Crowned with Glory by Dr Thomas Holland, Writer’s Club Press, 2000, sovereignword.org/?series=dr-thomas- holland-crowned-with-glory sovereignword.org/?series=dr-thomas-holland-crowned-with-glory 25 Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, A Closer Look! B.F.T. #1825 by Jack A. Moorman, The Bible for To- day, 1990 26 In Awe of Thy Word by G.A. Riplinger, A.V. Publications Corp., 2003 27 Final Authority by Dr William P. Grady, Grady Publications, 1993 28 Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version 29 When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text – A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorised Version B.F.T. #1617 by Jack. A. Moorman, The Bible for Today, 1988 30 The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills, The Christian Research Press, 197 standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf 31 Answers to Your Bible Version Questions by David W. Daniels, Chick Publications, 2003 110

32 www.1john57.com/1john57.htm 33 The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship by Kevin James, Micro-Load Press, 1990. 34 The Book of Acts by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1974 35 sovereignword.org/?series=dr-thomas-hollands-manuscript-evidence-class Lessons 11 Translational Considerations. 2019 Update: Site no longer available